- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:30:05 +0300
- To: "ext Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On Apr 29, 2005, at 17:53, ext Harry Halpin wrote: > The cleanest way I can think of is just to define a RDDL like > vocabulary for the representation to return that tells a user in > good-old HTML that this http:// URI is about a non-information > resource. Then we can use content negotiation to also > serve relevant RDF at the URI. After all, we gotta put those RDF > statements *somewhere*. > I think, in principle, I agree with this approach. Though insofar as the specific machinery is concerned, my preferred and recommended solution is to explicitly ask for an RDF description of the resource identified by the URI, via that URI, using URIQA[1]. I.e. given the URI "http://sw.nokia.com/uriqq", one can simply ask MGET /uriqa HTTP/1.0 Host: sw.nokia.com (e.g. curl -X MGET "http://sw.nokia.com/uriqa") and be told by the web authority of the URI (and thus indirectly by the owner of the URI) as much as can be expressed in RDF and OWL about the resource in question, insofar as the owner wishes to share that information. Or, if preferring to use a centralized, third-party source, e.g. GET /describe?uri=http://sw.nokia.com/uriqa HTTP/1.0 Host: mother-of-all-knowledgebases.org (e.g. curl "http://mother-of-all-knowledgebases.org/describe?uri=http:// sw.nokia.com/uriqa") And for both cases, use a named graph based trust infrastructure. And yes, use content negotiation to request particular encodings of either representations or descriptions of resources. Cheers, Patrick [1] http://sw.nokia.com/uriqa/URIQA.html
Received on Saturday, 30 April 2005 06:30:55 UTC