On 7/26/06, Xiaoshu Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--Danny,
> (I don't know either way if Accept-Vocabulary specifically is
> a good idea, but it illustrates the point, there doesn't seem
> to be any architectural obstacle to content negotiation at a
> semantic level).
Any specification must have semantics to drive certain actions. The
semantic domain dealt in HTTP protocol does not and should not overlap with
the semantic domain of the RDF model.
They share names...
The semantic domain of HTTP is
Information Resources. Each IR is treated as an atomic unit and HTTP GET
worries how to get a representation of that resource across the network.
Whether the representation is in what langauge and in what format does not
break that the assumption that the resource is atomic. Accept langauge,
character encoding, Synonymy etc., is all fine because it does not break
that assumption. But if you extend the HTTP in a way that you will break
the resource into various pieces,
But I'm not suggesting breaking the resource into pieces. A single
resource can have multiple representations!!
An RSS 1.0 feed is a legitimate use of RDF over HTTP, yes? On Thursday
a given feed might contain statements about resources item1, item2,
item3. Friday it might contain statements about item3, item4, item5.
But they are both representations of the same resource. The fact that
the component parts of their representation varies is irrelevant.
In the same fashion, graphs A, B and C can legitimately be
representations of a *single* resource, even if C is the union of the
statements in A and B.
It is a misguided argument to say: ... at a semantic level.
I accept that "semantic" used in this way is not a very good
description, but I think the intention is clear when contrasted with
the "syntax" of media types etc.
Without a
clearly defined semantic domain, this kind of sentences can be used to argue
for anything. Is this what you want?
Slippery slope again, I'm not arguing for anything except that the
notion of "semantic content negotiation" over HTTP might be worth
exploring.
I guess we'll just have to agree to differ :-)
Cheers,
Danny.
--
http://dannyayers.com
