W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2003


From: Seth Ladd <seth@brivo.net>
Date: 19 May 2003 13:43:32 -0400
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <1053366212.17005.206.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Mon, 2003-05-19 at 06:23, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> Howdy folks,
> I'm happy to announce the release of the first public version of URIQA, the 
> Nokia URI Query Agent, which is an example implementation of the URIQA model 
> for semantic web enabled servers.
> http://sw.nokia.com/URIQA.html


Why introduce a new HTTP header instead of using an existing one like
Accept?  How does URI-Resolution-Mode: Description differ from just
setting Accept: application/rdf+xml?

FWIW, the W3 TAG has been debating [1] if what you're doing (that is, if
the description of a thing is different than the thing itself) is "the
right thing", although they have been stuck for a while.

I hope I don't stir it up again, just wanted to point it out.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#httpRange-14
Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 13:45:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:42 UTC