W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2008

Question about the On Linking Alternative Representations TAG Finding

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:47:56 +0100
Message-Id: <0676DBF2-3F74-46DC-97FE-55F5FA52A67F@cyganiak.de>
To: raman@google.com, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>

Hi Raman and other TAG members,

This is a question about the TAG Finding
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html
“On Linking Alternative Representations To Enable Discovery And  
Publishing”

The finding is quite concise, and I have repeatedly encountered  
disagreement about its interpretation when discussing best practices  
in the Linking Open Data community. Hence I ask for clarification on  
one point.


About resources that have multiple variants, the finding suggests:

“1. Create representation-specific URIs (specific resources) for each  
available alternative (representation_i), e.g.,http://example.com/ubiquity/resource/representation_i 
.”

And then to configure a “generic resource” that links to and/or  
content-negotiates to each of those representation-specific URIs.

My question is:

Is it ever appropriate to configure content negotiation on the  
*representation-specific URIs*? So, if someone requests the specific  
URI for representation_1, but the Accept header indicates a preference  
for representation_3, should content negotiation kick in and  
representation_3 be served instead?

If this is not appropriate, why?

Cheers,
Richard
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 17:48:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:23 UTC