RE: Vocabulary for HTTP headers

> Martynas Jusevičius [mailto:martynas@graphity.org]
> Unless the resource is a document?

If the resource is an electronic file and you can be
completely sure that the file never changes - that the
Content-Length and ETag are fixed - then you could consider
the two resources (<foo.jpg> and its representation in the
HTTP message) as identical/owl:sameAs.

If not the semantics of the model are, while perhaps sufficient
for a specific use-case, IMHO not correct. Whether the resource
is a document, however that is defined, is not relevant.

Tore

> <t-eriksson@so.taisho.co.jp> wrote:
>>> Richard Smith [mailto:richard@ex-parrot.com] It seems to me that many
>>> HTTP headers are just another way of expressing metadata about
>>> resources, and would map naturally to RDF predicates.  For example
>>>
>>>    Content-Type: image/jpeg
>>>    Content-Length: 514090
>>>    ETag: 7f4cd251e2a7b8584d686bc06454a50e6ae1aaaa
>>>
>>> might map to
>>>
>>>    @prefix http: <http://example.com/http/> .
>>>    <foo.jpg> http:contentType "image/jpeg" ;
>>>      http:contentLength 514090 ;
>>>      http:eTag "7f4cd251e2a7b8584d686bc06454a50e6ae1aaaa" .
>>
>> Allow me to point out that Content-Type and Content-Length are meta
>> data not describing the resource, but the entity body/representation
>> (httpRange-14 and all that). For an internal application conflating
>> these into one compound resource is one way of modelling, but in my
>> experience keeping them separate makes things clearer in the end.
>>
>> For what it's worth,
>> Tore

Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 00:29:57 UTC