- From: Ed Davies <edavies@nildram.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:40:29 +0100
- To: wangxiao@musc.edu
- CC: Technical Architecture Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>
Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > I think a less intrusive way is to give the RDF mimetype representation > (application/rdf+xml, text/rdf+n3,...) a unique status. Because RDF > document always talk about something-else. > > So, GET (rdf) http://example.com/ Sorry, but this seems like a very poor solution to me. It complicates the meaning of GET (to add the possibility of returning metadata instead of a representation of the resource). It seems to be quite reasonable to ask for metadata about an RDF document; for example, you might want provenance or validity period information. Also, there could be horrible interactions with content negotiation. Some content types (e.g., application/xhtml+xml with suitable GRDDL markup) could be considered "RDF mimetypes" and hence be quite sensible responses to a request for metadata yet also be used for likely representations of the resource itself. Ed Davies.
Received on Monday, 27 August 2007 16:40:52 UTC