- From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 16:13:12 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
Hi Dan, > Not sure what's up with wget, but curl seems to proke an rdf/xml response just fine. Probably user error or proxy failre on my part, though I can't for the life of me see what I'm doing wrong. Transcript below, but happy to concede that it's my mistake. Stuart -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England skw@williams-s-2 ~/play $ wget -d --header="Accept: application/rdf+xml" http://lcsh.info/sh85112589 Setting --header (header) to Accept: application/rdf+xml DEBUG output created by Wget 1.11.3 on cygwin. --2008-10-03 17:07:45-- http://lcsh.info/sh85112589 Connecting to proxy:8088... connected. Created socket 3. Releasing 0x006ab9f8 (new refcount 1). ---request begin--- GET http://lcsh.info/sh85112589 HTTP/1.0 User-Agent: Wget/1.11.3 Accept: application/rdf+xml Host: lcsh.info ---request end--- Proxy request sent, awaiting response... ---response begin--- HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:07:01 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.8 (Ubuntu) DAV/2 SVN/1.4.6 PHP/5.2.4-2ubuntu5.3 with Suhosin-Patch mod_wsgi/1.3 Python/2.5.2 Content-location: http://lcsh.info/sh85112589.html Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8 Content-length: 2720 Connection: close Age: 139 ---response end--- 200 OK Length: 2720 (2.7K) [application/xhtml+xml] Saving to: `sh85112589.6' 100%[===============================================================================================================================================================>] 2,720 --.-K/s in 0s Closed fd 3 2008-10-03 17:07:45 (27.4 MB/s) - `sh85112589.6' saved [2720/2720] > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@danbri.org] > Sent: 03 October 2008 16:56 > To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) > Cc: RDFa; www-tag@w3.org WG; Ed Summers > Subject: Re: lcsh.info RDFa SKOS and content negotiation - > use of RDF-style # IDs in RDFa? > > Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote: > > Hello Dan, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@danbri.org] > >> Sent: 03 October 2008 13:50 > >> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) > >> Cc: RDFa; www-tag@w3.org WG; Ed Summers > >> Subject: Re: lcsh.info RDFa SKOS and content negotiation - > >> use of RDF-style # IDs in RDFa? > >> > >> Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote: > >>> Hello Dan, > >>> > >>> Granted that this is not a content-negotiation case, but I > >> think that sectiion 3.2.2 of Webarch [1] may be relevant > >> here, particularly the 3rd situation described therein. > >> > >> This is a conneg case; there is RDF/XML and RDFa coming from > >> the same URI. > > > > We could quibble (and I will:-) though it doesn't matter > wrt to the main point at hand). A few wgets with and without > accept header reveals that retrievals on > http://lcsh.info/sh85112589 always (seems to) return an > application/xhtml+xml representation. > > curl -H 'accept: application/rdf+xml' http://lcsh.info/sh85112589 > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <rdf:RDF > xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" > xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#" > > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://lcsh.info/sh85112589#concept"> > <skos:broader > rdf:resource="http://lcsh.info/sh85062913#concept"/> > <skos:inScheme rdf:resource="http://lcsh.info/"/> > <dcterms:modified > rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">1986- > 02-11T00:00:00</dcterms:modified> > <rdf:type > rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept"/> > <skos:altLabel xml:lang="en">Humanities and > religion</skos:altLabel> > <dcterms:created > rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#date">1986-02-1 > 1</dcterms:created> > <skos:prefLabel xml:lang="en">Religion and the > humanities</skos:prefLabel> > </rdf:Description> > </rdf:RDF> > > Not sure what's up with wget, but curl seems to proke an rdf/xml > response just fine. Other flavours are available, per > http://lcsh.info/ > "The server uses content negotiation to determine what > representation of > the concept to send: application/rdf+xml, text/n3, > application/json, and > otherwise application/xhtml+xml." > > Am I misunderstanding what you're trying to do with wget? > > (re content-location headers -- quite possibly there are issues with > those, I've not looked at them closely, but it does seem to send > "Content-location: http://lcsh.info/sh85112589.rdf" ok with > the rdf/xml > above) > > >>> The XHTML+RDFa representation returned here does not > >> *define* a target for the #concept fragment identifier - were > >> the an id="concept" on the div there would be an > >> inconsistency. The representation conveys assertions *about* > >> http://lcsh.info/sh85112589#concept, wisely IMO avoiding the > >> about="#concept" form which would take us into same document > >> reference territory. > >>> Certainly there's a little squinting going on here - but I > >> think that unless one is actually making assertions about > >> 'fragments' of the document, then its ok as long as the > >> references *do not* resolve to a hypertext anchor in the > >> document [aside: I'd also avoid naming things with names that > >> look like xpointer expressions too :-)]. > >> > >> I think you've found the best way of wriggling through this mess of > >> specs :) It doesn't feel entirely graceful but it should at > >> least allow > >> us to deploy RDF/XML and RDFa alongside each other in this style. > >> > >>> I think that the relevant media-type registrations could > >> (and probably should) be brought into line. > >> > >> That would be nice. Is it feasible? > > > > I would have thought it possible. Lurking somewhere in the > background once upon a time was an intention to update RFC > 3023 (the XML media-type registration) which I'm trying to > find out status on. Coordinating updates to that and to any > +xml media type registrations that build on its defaults > would be essential I would have thought. Updating the > application/xhtml+xml media type registration seems to me to > fall within the scope of the XHTML2 WG and... (taking a deep > breath)... the relationship between XHTML (of any flavor) and > the text/html media type is entirely mysterious to me (eg. > XHTML+RDFa served up as "text/html"... could/should that happen?). > > > >> I was wondering whether we might also sneak in a common symbol > >> '#123412341234' (or something else obscure) meaning "the main thing > >> described by this document", so that this common case could proceed > >> without risk of unintended clashes (except by those who use that > >> hard-to-guess symbol). > > > > I have a horrible feeling that that's a serious suggestion! > > Uglier things have gotten through ;) > > > I'd prefer tdb:2008:http://lcsh.info/sh85112589 (modulo > syntax), with Larry Masinter's tdb: scheme taken through the > URI scheme registration process, which is only a stones throw > away from Steven's pto: idea. And... lest I forget, > http://t-d-b.org/?http://lcsh.info/sh85112589 would also do > the trick (modulo being temporally grounded). > > Yeah, I like tdb: ... > > cheers, > > Dan > > -- > http://danbri.org/ >
Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 16:16:16 UTC