content negotiation

[Rutger Vos]

Hi all,

I'm tempted to implement content-negotiation on TreeBASE so that
LinkedData browsers can traverse it without the intermediate step of
visiting the RDF file that lists the available serializations. OK? Not
OK? Give it a try? Hilmar, what do you think?

Rutger

[Hilmar Lapp]

Give it a try if you want, but what do you expect as the advantage?
Are you trying to obviate the need for the format=rdf parameter?

I'm not sure what you have in mind as the use-case that would
significantly benefit from this compared to not having conneg. Conneg
is not (and I think should not for the sake of simplicity) part of the
standard, so browsers can't expect it anyway, and visiting the RDF
shouldn't be costly anyway.

-hilmar

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "PhyloWS" group.
> To post to this group, send email to phy...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to phylows+u...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/phylows?hl=en
> .
>

--
===========================================================
: Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org :
===========================================================

[Rutger Vos]

Yes, mmmm, the format=rdf parameter is one part. I guess the larger
issue is that I am not quite sure what the recommended behaviour
should be to distinguish between a resource-in-the-abstract (and what
that is supposed to return) versus an RDF/XML serialization of some
statements about a resource. Are they the same thing? How does this
serialization then relate to others (e.g. html, nexus, nexml, json)?

--
Dr. Rutger A. Vos
School of Biological Sciences
Philip Lyle Building, Level 4
University of Reading
Reading
RG6 6BX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 118 378 7535
http://www.nexml.org
http://rutgervos.blogspot.com