John, Kingsley, I wrote: >>> OK, I can understand that. Does that mean that if I have under the same URI >>> serve different representations (e. g. rdf/xml, turtle and xhtml+RDFa) all >>> those >>> representations must return exactly the same triples, or would it be >>> allowed to >>> use schema.org in the RDFa, W3C Organisation Ontology for rdf/xml and foaf >>> when returning turtle? After all it's different descriptions of the same >>> resource.
John wrote: >> My take on this is each representation (with negotiation only on format via >> HTTP Accept header) *should* contain the same set of RDF statements >> (triples). >> Also one could define a different URL for each representation which can be >> linked to with Content-Location in the HTTP headers. >> >> We’re you to introduce an additional (orthogonal) way to negotiate a certain >> profile, this would be orthogonal to the format. Following on from above, one >> could then have a separate URL for each format-profile combination. Kingsley wrote: > Yes. > > For the sake of additional clarity, how about speaking about documents and > content-types rather than "representation" which does inevitably conflate key > subtleties, in regards to RDF (Language, Notations, and Serialization > Formats)? The terminology is fine with me, as long as we don't forget the entities we describe. So to repeat my question in another mail: I have an entity described by a (generic) URI. Then I have three groups of documents describing that entity, the first uses schema.org, the second group uses org ontology and the third uses foaf. All documents are available as RDF/XML, Turtle and xhtml+RDFa. How does a client that knows only the generic URI for the resource tell the server that it prefers foaf in turtle and what does the server answer? Best, Lars