On 11/03/2010 11:04, Toby Inkster wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 02:24 +0000, Nathan wrote: >> If I have multiple representations of a resource which I consider >> equal, let's say one of each of the following: RDF+XML, RDF+N3, SVG >> >> Then should all three representations be considered equivalent? > > They certainly *could* all represent the same thing. Whether they *do* > represent the same thing is a judgement call.
Well, if they are accessible via the same URI, using content negociation, then my reading of the HTTP specification is that they *must be* representations of the same resource. Not sure what Nathan means by "equivalent"... >> Is it correct that all representations must have consistent fragment >> identifiers in order to be considered equivalent? > > A fragment identifier should not identify different things in different > representations. (Though it may be unrepresented in some or all of the > representations.) Is that so? If I recall correctly the URI RFC (no internet when writing the mail, sorry), the semantics of fragments identifiers depends on the retrieved content-type. So why would they *have* to identify the same thing? That being said, I agree it sounds like a good practice. Especially if you consider an RDF/XML and a Turtle representation of the same RDF graph... If their fragment identifier were not consistent, that would be a serious headache... But is this rule written somewhere? pa
