- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:40:00 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Noah Writes: > Your view seems to be that the resource needs to, at least in some sense, be > isomorphic to the representation, so you infer that when the representation > changes the resource must have changed. It seems to follow > that in the case of conneg, the resource must in some sense be (or be > isomorphic to) the union of all served representations. This view is actually consistent with the normative behavior for GRDDL that we settled on with regards to content negotiation: http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-tests/#langconneg3 In the case of GRDDL, the 'maximal' GRDDL result (the RDF merge of the renditions of each of the representations) is an acceptable rendition of the original IR. > My preferred view is that > there is allowance for changing policy as to how a particular resource is > represented, and that such changes to not necessarily imply that the resource itself has changed. With such an allowance, a GRDDL-aware agent would not be able to assume much about the IR behind the RDF rendition. -- Chimezie
Received on Friday, 26 October 2007 01:40:15 UTC