W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

RE: ContentType negotiation

From: Lee Jonas <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 12:17:31 +0100
Message-ID: <51ED29F31E20D411AAFD00105A4CD7A77101@zingiber.cakehouse.co.uk>
To: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jborden@mediaone.net>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net] wrote:

>Aaron Swartz wrote:
>> Lee Jonas <ljonas@acm.org> wrote:
>> > The suggestion is: one possible way to associate RDF metadata with a
>> > resource is via content negotiation - i.e. negotiate for the
>> 'text/rdf+xml'
>> > or 'application/rdf+xml' content type of a resource to get back an rdf
>> > document containing the resource's metadata.
>> >
>> > Is this a good idea, or just abuse of multiviews / typemaps?
>> I'd think this would be acceptable, and is in fact what I plan to
>> implement
>> myself. I believe that the W3C has even published a NOTE which uses this
>> technique.
>Acceptable to whom? Content negotiation as it is currently implemented and
>deployed is not acceptable to those people who don't have control over
>ISP's server (that's alot of people).

BTW, I don't have control over my web space provider's server, yet they are
more than happy to change my site's options to allow 'multiviews'.

That said, I agree it is an issue for others who are not so fortunate.
However, I don't suggest this should be the only way to associate RDF with a
resource.  In summary there should be 3 ways:

1) A 'application/rdf+xml' (or 'text/rdf+xml' or whatever) "view" of the
resource - retrievable via content negotiation.
2) A link from the resource to external metadata descriptions of it.
3) Metadata descriptions embedded within the resource itself.


Received on Monday, 23 April 2001 07:17:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:30 UTC