Re: Requesting the RDF MIME type of an image

Hi all,

Le 27/10/2009 00:24, Toby Inkster a écrit :
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 23:06 +0100, Raphaël Troncy wrote:
>> We had a conversation with Tim Berners Lee during this workshop that 
>> pretty much agrees with what Toby just wrote below ... while I was 
>> arguing than nobody has formally defined what is the 'sameness' of two
>> representations of a resource. The accessibility community has defined
>> the notion of "equivalent" when the two representations both fulfill
>> the same function or purpose upon presentation to the user, and in an 
>> accessibility context, it is fine to say that a text is another 
>> representation of an audio resource ...
> 
> My personal answer is that two responses are "the same enough" if you,
> as a publisher, would be happy to publish them under the same URI
> without any explicit way of referring to them individually. If you, as
> the publisher, would be satisfied never being sure which representation
> a consumer will get, then they're OK to share a URI.

Note that deciding to serve different representation under the same URI
does not mean that we do not also provide a specific URI for each
representation. For this, the Content-Location HTTP header is your
friend [1]; it can provide the most specific URI of the retrieved
representation. E.g.

  GET /some_resource HTTP/1.1
  Host: example.com
  Accept: application/rdf+xml
  ...

would give

  200 OK
  Content-type: application/rdf+xml
  Content-Location: /some_resource.rdf
  ...

while

  GET /some_resource HTTP/1.1
  Host: example.com
  Accept: image/*
  ...

would give

  200 OK
  Content-type: image/png
  Content-Location: /some_resource.png
  ...


 pa


[1] although unfortunately browsers do not implement it correctly; see
http://jigsaw.w3.org/HTTP/CL/ . However, as long as the fetched URI and
the content location are in the same "folder", everything should be ok.

Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 09:02:20 UTC