- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 19:33:28 -0500
- To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Graham et al. > At 08:00 AM 2/26/02 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote: > >What is returned after an HTTP GET is a literal, or perhaps represented as a > >"data" URI, this HTTP transaction might be represented _in a very simplified > >fashion_ as an RDF statement (and without URI escaping) > > > ><http://example.org/doc> http:GET > ><data:text/html,<html><title>example</title><body><p>This is a > >document</p></body></html> > . > > What an interesting idea! Instead of trying to formalize RDF in terms of > web operations, formalize web operations in terms of RDF. > > [Thinks... contexts... modalities... not easy, but I wonder if it could fly?] > It occured to me that the RDF representation of a MIME message (XMTP) http://www.openhealth.org/xmtp/ gets us much of the way there in terms of a full fledged RDF representation of an HTTP transaction: I've started to describe this: http://www.openhealth.org/xmtp/HTTP So roughly an explanation of the RFC 2396 terms: "resource" is a node labelled with a URI of scheme "http" "entity" is either a node labelled with a URI of scheme "mid" _or_ an anonymous node (bNode in the new terminology?) with rdf:type = http:Response Pat, perhaps the presented example is easier to parse, and less ambiguously stated, than the English text descriptions the RFCs :-)) Brian, this goes well along the way toward a proper defintion of these web architecture terms as you have requested from the TAG ... now only to get everyone to agree on these statements... Jonathan
Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 19:37:35 UTC