RE: URIQA!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Seth Ladd [mailto:seth@brivo.net]
> Sent: 19 May, 2003 20:44
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: URIQA!
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> 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?

Because resolving a URI to a description of the resource has nothing
to do with the MIME type, and in fact one may wish to request the
description in a specific MIME type, and this is demonstrated by
the URIQA servlet, which allows one to choose between RDF/XML,
N3, NTriples, and (for humans) HTML.

The new header is necessary because the semantics of concise bounded
descriptions of resources is not addressed in any of the existing
web architecture.

> 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.

Yes, I'm very aware of this debate, and have participated in some
portions of it and various offshoots of it.

And I don't think it's possible to stir up this issue any more
than it is, being somewhat of a persistent maelstrom of late ;-)

Patrick


> Seth
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#httpRange-14
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2003 03:56:45 UTC