Re: Why are RDF, RDFS & OWL not returning human-friendly versions?

Hi,

thanks for the technical explanation & ideas. I also saw that my browser 
(Firefox 66.0.2) was sending more than I asked for. But I did not want 
to ask a too technical question.

*The question is, how do we proceed? *
Is it ok as it is? Should it be changed? Who should be approached to 
change it? I was hoping that maybe some people who could change it would 
respond to my message, but that did not happen.

I can send a mail via the contact/support of the W3C, but I am not sure 
how successful I will be.

It is my opinion that having a human-friendly landing page to the URIs 
fits very well fit into the "EasierRDF" movement. How many of the "33% 
developers" are we loosing each single day where all they get back is 
some ugly source code?


Best regards,
Niklas

On 31.03.19 9:34 nachm., Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> Re: Why are RDF, RDFS & OWL not returning human-friendly versions?
> While mimetypes are a good starting point, there can always be a need for more granular options.
>
> Query parameters are one good, easy to use option used in other circumstances for this kind of thing.  For instance:
>
> https://unpkg.com/
>
> >
> >       Query Parameters
> >
> > |?meta|
> >     Return metadata about any file in a package as JSON (e.g.|/any/file?meta|)
> > |?module|
> >     Expands all “bare” |import| specifiers <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webappapis.html#resolve-a-module-specifier> in
> >     JavaScript modules to unpkg URLs. This feature is /very experimental/
> >
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> On 3/31/19 4:02 AM, Richard Light wrote:
> >
> > Niklas,
> >
> > I was bitten by this issue when testing content negotiation outcomes. The issue is that your browser is not an innocent bystander 
> > in this HTTP transaction: it will have provided a requested set of response formats (and not just 'text/html') which will have an 
> > impact on what is returned.  And different browsers have different default settings (which you as their user can alter).
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > On 31/03/2019 06:59, Niklas Petersen wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> visiting via a browser (text/html) the URIs of RDF, RDFS and OWL returns the turtle serialization of them. Would it not be better 
> >> to provide a more human-friendly version (.html)?
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
> >>     -> ? (probably to RDFS :/)
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
> >>     -> https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
> >>     -> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Niklas
> >>
> >>
> >> .
> >>
> > -- 
> > *Richard Light*
>
>
> -- 
> Stephen D. Williamssdw@lig.net  <mailto:sdw@lig.net?Subject=Re%3A%20Why%20are%20RDF%2C%20RDFS%20%26%20OWL%20not%20returning%20human-friendly%20versions%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C841fcd97-c404-c456-cf79-9520cc6f90c4%40lig.net%3E&References=%3C841fcd97-c404-c456-cf79-9520cc6f90c4%40lig.net%3E>  stephendwilliams@gmail.com  <mailto:stephendwilliams@gmail.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Why%20are%20RDF%2C%20RDFS%20%26%20OWL%20not%20returning%20human-friendly%20versions%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C841fcd97-c404-c456-cf79-9520cc6f90c4%40lig.net%3E&References=%3C841fcd97-c404-c456-cf79-9520cc6f90c4%40lig.net%3E>
> V:650-450-UNIX (8649) V:866.SDW.UNIX V:703.371.9362 F:703.995.0407
> Hangouts:stephendwilliams@gmail.com  <mailto:stephendwilliams@gmail.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Why%20are%20RDF%2C%20RDFS%20%26%20OWL%20not%20returning%20human-friendly%20versions%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C841fcd97-c404-c456-cf79-9520cc6f90c4%40lig.net%3E&References=%3C841fcd97-c404-c456-cf79-9520cc6f90c4%40lig.net%3E>  AIM:sdw Skype:StephenDWilliams
> Personal:http://sdw.st  facebook.com/sdwlig twitter.com/scienteer
> LinkedIn:http://sdw.st/in  Resume:http://sdw.st/resume