[foaf-protocols] Debugging results

Nathan nathan at webr3.org
Mon Aug 2 00:29:04 CEST 2010

Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Nathan <nathan at webr3.org> wrote:
>> Henry Story wrote:
>>> Social Web Architect
>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>> 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:
>>>>>>>> https://farewellutopia.com/user/me/profile#me
>>>>>>>> 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?
>> can't see any reason why 'should' - that would presume that machines can
>> read + understand HTML and get the link then follow it - certainly in this
>> case there would be exactly zero benefit. Better to just conneg through to
>> the alternative formats if they are available.
>>> 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)
>> yes, if it isn't then it's not a webid, id's just a URI, or worse, an URL -
>> debatable?
> no, there's no reason to forbid people from providing other
> representation for their personal profile document as long as at least
> one representation of the resource should be be triples or
> "semanticizable"

ahh yes I follow now - also would need to have the fragments identified 
the same I think (if it had them).



More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list