- From: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:46:20 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On tis, 2007-12-18 at 02:36 -0800, Pat Hayes wrote: > >I can't for the world see how numbers and RDF graphs can fall into the > >same category. > > They are both mathematical abstractions. An RDF > graph is defined to be a mathematical set: its > not a data structure or an expression. Ok, let's accept that argument. What harm would be done by returning 200 Ok with an RDF/XML serialization of this set when asked? For things like Jupiter, I can see a clear problem - the thing vs. a description of the thing. It makes a difference which you are referring to. There are a number of use cases that break when returning a HTML document when asked for Jupiter. But the RDF/XML is not *about* the RDF Graph in the same way, and I can't seem to find any issue with returning 200. What is the use case that breaks? I've stated before that the IR discussion needs to be grounded in use-cases, not theory. In other words, we need to *define* IRs in a way that supports our use cases, not the other way around. /Mikael -- <mikael@nilsson.name> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 10:46:36 UTC