- From: Laurian Gridinoc <laur@grapefruit.ro>
- Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 11:51:19 +0300
- To: Josh Sled <jsled@asynchronous.org>
- CC: Rodrigo Dias Arruda Senra <rsenra@acm.org>, dviner@apache.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Josh Sled wrote: >>[...] >>URIs identify resources; the Accept header should serve only to >>negotiate the format of that resource, not to branch between different >>resources... you may want the HTML meta-data about the RDF data, >>someday. :) >> >> And does not promote very much metadata discovery. You have to know that other representation are available, flagging this by HTTP Vary may interact not nice with caches - SW should not break the web. HTTP OPTIONS is an interesting thing, but again, won't promote discovery, it would be one more network operation just to try to find if is anything there for your agent. >>Why not have a URI for the resource, and a URI for the meta-data? >> >>GET /foo >><foo> >> <link rel="meta" href="/foo/meta" /> >></foo> >> >> There are several approaches (see RDF/A [1], GRRDL[2]) to express metadata, but none to accept metadata. The web has one-way links, but it lets you know about incoming links by HTTP Refferer; the blog world has a richer information exchange (pings, etc...). Now you may track the referrers and get their expressed metadata (if any) to check for statement about resources under your authority. It would be interesting to have a richer mechanism to ping the objects of my statements with the statement body itself or with an URI of the metadata that `talks' about things including the object. The destination resource may add to its metadata these statements, if the originator is trusted. [Note: We're exploring this in the upcoming version of platypus wiki [3], a semantic wiki) [1] http://www.formsplayer.com/notes/rdf-a.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/ [3] http://platypuswiki.sourceforge.net/project/roadmap/ Cheers, Laurian Gridinoc, www.grapefruit.ro
Received on Saturday, 2 April 2005 16:47:17 UTC