Nicholas Humfrey wrote:
The RDF views are not intended to expose exactly the same as the HTML views.
The RDF views and URIs are much closer to how the data is modelled in
the database.
Note that when using content negotiation, in the definition of HTTP the two
resources should represent the same data. Of course that's an ideal when you
use HTML and an RDF format because the human-readable page will always contain
more content (header, navigation, footer - although all those could probably be
described in RDF; descriptive and helping text).
Richard Cyganiak wrote:
I think it would be best to implement the mechanism described here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#hashuri
This would mean:
<b00b07kw#episode> is the thing
<b00b07kw.rdf> is the RDF variant
<b00b07kw.html> is the HTML variant
<b00b07kw> is a generic, content-negotiated document; it serves the
right variant directly, without any redirect, and gives the URI of the
selected variant in the Content-Location header.
I suppose it's not a popular view anymore because that document has an official
status now, but there's still the problem with #episode denoting an element in
the HTML variant. Either you do have an element with that ID there, then
#episode denotes both a thing and an HTML element. Or you don't have it, then
this would be regarded as broken HTML.
Maybe that's just a theoretical issue which can simply be ignored for
pragmatism.
Simon
