On 11 January 2011 13:19, Nina Jeliazkova <jeliazkova.nina at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 11 January 2011 13:15, Martin Guetlein <martin.guetlein at googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Nina Jeliazkova
>> <jeliazkova.nina at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Martin,
>> >
>> > On 11 January 2011 12:13, Martin Guetlein <
>> martin.guetlein at googlemail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello all,
>> >>
>> >> is there a standardized way to encode MIME types in URIs instead of
>> >> using the accept-header?
>> >>
>> >> For example Ambits services allow to specifiy this via 'media'
>> parameter:
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://apps.ideaconsult.net:8080/ambit2/compound/4025/conformer/462030?media=image/png
>> >> @Nina
>> >> How did you decide to use 'media'?
>> >>
>> >
>> > This is an (optional) support by Restlet library. There is so-called
>> "Tunnel
>> > service" , which could be turned on (off by default) and will accept
>> "media"
>> > parameter to specify MIME type.
>> >
>> > There is also "method" parameter, allowing to "tunnel" all HTTP methods
>> via
>> > GET. (e.g. curl -X GET /dataset/999?method=DELETE )
>> >
>> >
>> >> Have other partners implemented something similar?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I guess it is easy for all partners using Restlet to turn the tunnel
>> service
>> > on.
>> >
>> > AFAIK, there is no standard solution for this kind of workaround. If
>> there
>> > are no preferences from other REST frameworks , we might decide to
>> include
>> > "media" parameter in the API as well.  It is quite convenient to
>> "deceive"
>> > browsers ...
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Nina
>>
>>
>> Hi Nina, All,
>>
>> I just discussed this issue with Christoph, Micha and Andreas.
>> Even though the media parameter is already integrated in Restlet, and
>> could be implemented for our framework, we thought about another
>> solution:
>> We could use file-extensions in URIs, i.e. add ".rdf", ".txt", ".png"
>> to the resource URI.
>> This would need slightly more effort in terms of implementation (map
>> file-extensions to MIME types), but would be very intuitive and easy
>> to use.
>>
>> What do you/people think?
>>
>>
>
> Well, I don't like the extension approach at all,  because it is not
> aligned with the REST idea that an URI is one resource, having different
> representations.   Adding extensions means these are effectively different
> resources , and have different URIs (even it will be hard to tell within RDF
> representation these are the same objects!)
>
> URI parameters are little bit better (not ideal), in the sense the URI is
> still the same.
>
>
One more argument against extension came to my mind after sending the email
- it will make AA much more complicated,  as we'll have to register multiple
URIs about the same object into OpenSSO system ...

Nina



> Best regards,
> Nina
>
>
>
>> Best regards,
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I am asking because I would like to extend the compound API (I need
>> >> the pictures for the reports).
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Martin
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Dipl-Inf. Martin Gütlein
>> >> Phone:
>> >> +49 (0)761 203 8442 (office)
>> >> +49 (0)177 623 9499 (mobile)
>> >> Email:
>> >> guetlein at informatik.uni-freiburg.de
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Development mailing list
>> >> Development at opentox.org
>> >> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Development mailing list
>> > Development at opentox.org
>> > http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dipl-Inf. Martin Gütlein
>> Phone:
>> +49 (0)761 203 8442 (office)
>> +49 (0)177 623 9499 (mobile)
>> Email:
>> guetlein at informatik.uni-freiburg.de
>> _______________________________________________
>> Development mailing list
>> Development at opentox.org
>> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>>
>
>