- markup (76)
- xml (11)
- xslt (23)
- pipelines (8)
- atom (9)
- overlapping markup (6)
- schema (11)
- creole (5)
- dtll (1)
- xforms (1)
- xpath (1)
- xquery (2)
- coding (2)
- datagovuk (1)
- genealogy (4)
- hardware (1)
- linked data (16)
- modelling (1)
- named graphs (1)
- opendata (1)
- provenance (1)
- psi (3)
- skos (1)
- sparql (4)
- Talis (7)
- unicode (1)
- uri (4)
- versioning (1)
- visualisation (6)
- web (78)
- google (4)
- html5 (5)
- jQuery (2)
- rdf (46)
- ontologies (2)
- rdfa (8)
- rdfQuery (5)
- rest (6)
- wikis (1)
- work (3)
- legislation (2)
- xmlsummerschool09 (2)
- life (28)
- children (5)
- equality (6)
- gtd (1)
- environment (4)
- gadgets (5)
- software (3)
- xlinq (2)
- conferences (11)
- ukgc09 (1)
- xtech (9)
- xtech2008 (3)
- blog (8)
- drupal (3)
Re: Content negotiation for getting meta data.
What happens with the legislation API is that if you request an identifier URI for some item of legislation (which is a non-information resource) you will get a 303 response which redirects you to an information resource (representing the current information about that legislation). Requests to that information resource will be given a response appropriate to the requested representation, eg RDF/XML or HTML. I glossed over this because, as you say, it’s tangential to the point of the post :)
But I am slightly uncomfortable about the current state of affairs in that requests for RDF/XML to the information resource URI will provide metadata about it, whereas requests for HTML to that same URI will provide content (and some metadata). I’m still debating (largely with myself) about whether the 303 redirection should point at different resources for metadata vs content.