Re: Conforming is such sweet sorrow

Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2007 2:06 PM, Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu> wrote:
> [..snip..]
>   
>> In httpRange-14's eye, the meaning of a message is not
>> solely dependent on what the message is but also on how the message is
>> delivered through the web.  RDFa's and GRDDL's RDF is *delivered* from client side, just like fragment identifier, it doesn't count.
>>     
>
> Actually, the case with GRDDL is not delivered solely from
> client-side, since the GRDDL result RDF is calculated by a mechanism
> that includes the possibility of dereferencing subsequent URIs
> mentioned in the content of the message.  So an entire GRDDL result
> seems fair game for the 'meaning of the message' and for every
> information resource that had representations fetched, the rules for
> checking that inconsistency would also apply (however, note that
> http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/grddl-rules3.n3 doesn't make use of - or
> seem to need - a term that denotes the class of IR).  I'm just trying
> to think of how this translates from the abstract (where this topic
> has mainly remained) to an actual implementation of a "conforming"
> semantic web agent.
>   
My understanding it is done in client side as all XSLT transformation.  
Of course, server can do XSLT but will be for a different purpose.

Nevertheless, it still doesn't matter. httpRange-14 doesn't care about 
the content type of a returned representation.  It only cares about the 
response code. 

For any http-uri "x", if

(1) x respond 200
(2) And there is an assertion "x a web:NonInformationResource" (I don't 
know who should define it, Tim says AWWW won't. So, I guess anyone can 
do it in their own way).

Then, by httpRange-14, it results in a contradiction.

Xiaoshu

Received on Sunday, 25 November 2007 22:06:16 UTC