[foaf-protocols] Debugging results
henry.story at gmail.com
Mon Aug 2 00:05:27 CEST 2010
Social Web Architect
On 1 Aug 2010, at 23:50, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1 Aug 2010, at 23:42, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> returns: doesn't return any RDF, rather it returns standard XHTML -
>>>>> accept sent is: application/rdf+xml, text/rdf+n3,
>>>>> application/rdf+turtle, application/x-turtle, application/turtle,
>>>>> application/xml, */*
>>>>> note: can you check it out reto, if you're not already aware
>>>> yes there does not seem to be any rdfa in there
>>>> $ rapper -i rdfa https://farewellutopia.com/user/me/profile -o turtle
>>>> returns an empty doc
>>> which should be ok as long as content-negotiation works correctly
>>> (which i'm fixing now, currently it chooses of the most concrete
>>> acceptetd types with the highest q-value the one who comes first
>>> alphabetically, in this case application/turtle but as this isn't
>>> supported it falls back to xhtml).
>> Well I checked the html, and I don't think it contains rdfa either.
> no the html doesn't contain rdfa, but rdf/xml, turtle, rdf/json and
> -n-triples representations are available.
that's an intersting case. It suggests a few questions:
Should the html at least contain a link to the rdf/xml in that case? Which could then be followed?
Should every representation for a WebID be semanticizable? (Does not quite seem like it should, and in any case they can't all be known)
What are the good reasons for having html be a lower q value than rdf/xml? Is it simply that rdf/xml can only be rdf, whereas html may or may not be machine processable? (In which case any other machine processable format would have higher value)
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
More information about the foaf-protocols