Dereferencing RDF, RDFS & OWL in a browser should return human-friendly versions

[np00]

Problem Statement:

_"visiting via a browser (text/html) the URIs of RDF, RDFS and OWL returns the turtle serialization of them. Would it not be better to provide a more human-friendly version (.html)?

http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# -> ? (probably to RDFS :/)

http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# -> https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# -> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/"_ Source: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2019Mar/0092.html

"It is my opinion that having a human-friendly landing page to the URIs fits very well fit into the "EasierRDF" movement. How many of the "33% developers" are we loosing each single day where all they get back is some ugly source code?" Source: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2019Apr/0002.html

[dbooth-boston]

Interesting question. I can see pros and cons both ways. On the plus side, returning HTML would give something easy for the human to read. On the minus side, it may be confusing if the user was hoping to get RDF. Most people don't know how to set an HTTP Accept header to get the format they want (HTML versus RDF, for example). But certainly a good question to consider!

[gkellogg]

When returning HTML, include the RDF in a script block. Turtle describes doing this, and it is common and will be normative for JSON-LD.

[VladimirAlexiev]

Many w3c namespaces return some text, plus links to various serializations