Hi Nathan, thanks for your clarifying reply! That gave me the confirmation that we were on the right track. Indeed I should not judge such issues from the behavior of browsers that are not even RDF-aware.
Cheers, Christoph 2010-06-10 14:24 Nathan <[email protected]>: > ... > > long: > I've asked this question and several related a few times over the past > few months (hence responding). > > From what I can tell what URI Identifier and dereferencing process (+ > Request Response chain which follows) are entirely orthogonal issues. > > To illustrate, if you dereference http://dbpedia.org/resource/London > then the final RDF representation you get will be courtesy of > http://dbpedia.org/data/London.[n3/rdf/ttl], but the RDF will still > describe http://dbpedia.org/resource/London. > > If you consider from a client / code standpoint in a setup where you > have two modules abstracted from each other, an HTTP Client and an RDF > Parser, the RDF Parser will request something like: > rdf = HTTP->get( uri ); > What the HTTP Client does, the deferencing process, the request response > chain which follows, the values in the HTTP Header fields, is completely > abstracted, transparent to the RDF Parser and indeed of no concern. > > Thus regardless of how the HTTP request chain works out, if you try to > get a RDF description for http://example.org/foo#bar then you'll still > be looking for http://example.org/foo#bar in the RDF that you get back. -- Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
