Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
I don't feel comfortable with showing a minimalistic page with some
weird acronyms when someone enters e.g.
http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/P12345.
How is someone to know, then, that you mean that the name denotes a
class of proteins, rather than a page of html?
Does a temporary redirect imply owl:sameAs?
I think content negotiation is a bad idea because it confuses the issue
of what the name identifies. It effectively allows the GET to return
many different things that *appear* to have the same name, because the
bit that differentiates it (the accept header) has no representation in
the rdf.
>
I think we should define, as a community, what sort of document we
expect the 303 to redirect to (RDF) and what the contents of that RDF
should be, e.g. minimally class, pointers to representations, where to
get more information (e.g. endpoints).
Remember, most of this kind of information will eventually live at
SPARQL endpoints. Providing this information is to enable
discovery/follow your nose navigation - which is inefficient, but polite.
I didn't like content negotiation, either, but for more practical reasons
(it reduces my ability to cache expensive resources effectively), though
that doesn't apply if the content negotiation is done prior to redirection.
What I don't quite follow is what the "logical" problem is with
content-negotiated redirects, as you still have fixed URLs for the specific
representations (albeit perhaps less pretty ones), and if you really want
to make any statements about specific representations, do you really want
to attach them to some redirectable URL (what's the benefit of that)?
