So, the server now knows the file... but what's your email address,
or your URI? I.e., which Person in the RDF obtained by dereferencing
that URI is the user of the browser? My FOAF file has a load of other
people in it, too.
This recommendation goes double if the source is a query interface
(e.g., a URIQA server), where one is potentially more likely to
receive more than one foaf:Person node in the response.
It seems to me that you need to provide more information; either an
explicit URI, or a pair of (IFP, IFP value). I've been having to do
exactly this in an application I'm building, where I have to identify
subjects in a chunk of RDF, and they might be bnodes with an IFP or
resources with a URI.
My preference, by the way, is either 2 or 4; standardisation isn't a
quick process, and the Link header seems quite flexible. It might be
interesting to try
Link: <
http://example.com/foaf.rdf>; rel="foaf"; subject="http://
example.com/foaf.rdf#me"
to solve my objection.
-R
On 29 Aug 2005, at 05:36, Danny Ayers wrote:
> 1. use "FOAF: http://example.org/foaf.rdf"
> - pursue IETF/IANA registration for it (see RFC 3864 and:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-header-
> index.html
>
> 2. use "X-FOAF: http://example.org/foaf.rdf"
> - I've not found confirmation, but people seem to think it's ok
> without registration
>
> 3. use (something like) "Profile: http://example.org/foaf.rdf"
> - it's not tied to a particular data type, might be more appropriate
> and actually stand a chance of successful registration
>
> 4. use "Link: <http://example.org/foaf.rdf>; rel="foaf"
> - suggested by Mark Nottingham (editor/author of some of the related
> specs) - it was in RFC 2068, (but isn't in 2616), so should be
> acceptable standards-wise, has the advantage of mapping 1:1 with HTML
> link tag. Christopher Schmidt recognised the Link: construct, posted
> some further references to #swig:
> http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/chatlogs/swig/
> 2005-05-18#T12-53-38
>
> So...any preferences?
> (I'd be willing to do the paperwork if registration was needed)
>
> More notes, and even a little code (!) around:
> http://dannyayers.com/archives/2005/08/28/foaf-uri-in-http-headers-
> easy/
> http://www.ontogon.com/movabletype/
> http://dannyayers.com/archives/2005/08/27/foaf-cookies-a-silver-
> bullet-for-web-marketing/
>
> Graham Klyne's behind the registry docs (along with mnot), as one
> would expect he's done some RDF noodling with it:
> http://www.ninebynine.org/IETF/Messaging/HdrRegistry/Intro.html
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
> --
>
> http://dannyayers.com
>
>
Received on Mon Aug 29 2005 - 19:02:57 EDT