atom feed151 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: Is 303 really necessary?
FromSent OnAttachments
74 earlier messages
NathanNov 5, 2010 3:05 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 3:12 am 
Ian DavisNov 5, 2010 3:16 am 
Ian DavisNov 5, 2010 3:24 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 3:33 am 
Ian DavisNov 5, 2010 3:40 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 3:56 am 
Ian DavisNov 5, 2010 3:59 am 
Ian DavisNov 5, 2010 4:01 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 4:14 am 
Mischa TuffieldNov 5, 2010 4:47 am 
Norman GrayNov 5, 2010 5:11 am 
Dave ReynoldsNov 5, 2010 5:38 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 5:52 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 5:56 am 
Vasiliy FaronovNov 5, 2010 6:00 am 
Vasiliy FaronovNov 5, 2010 6:33 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 7:17 am 
David WoodNov 5, 2010 7:18 am 
Pat HayesNov 5, 2010 7:27 am 
Ian DavisNov 5, 2010 8:12 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 5, 2010 8:18 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 8:39 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 5, 2010 9:35 am 
Pat HayesNov 5, 2010 10:29 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 5, 2010 10:30 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 10:37 am 
Hugh GlaserNov 5, 2010 10:50 am 
David BoothNov 6, 2010 1:41 pm 
Norman GrayNov 6, 2010 3:45 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 6, 2010 4:07 pm 
David BoothNov 7, 2010 10:27 pm 
David BoothNov 7, 2010 10:27 pm 
Tore ErikssonNov 7, 2010 11:17 pm 
Toby InksterNov 8, 2010 12:36 am 
Toby InksterNov 8, 2010 2:10 am 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 6:39 am 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 6:42 am 
Norman GrayNov 8, 2010 7:51 am 
Toby InksterNov 8, 2010 8:03 am 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 12:33 pm 
Lars HeuerNov 8, 2010 1:16 pm 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 1:35 pm 
Dave ReynoldsNov 8, 2010 1:50 pm 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 3:34 pm 
Tore ErikssonNov 8, 2010 5:51 pm 
Dave ReynoldsNov 9, 2010 6:36 am 
Lars HeuerNov 9, 2010 8:00 am 
Kjetil KjernsmoNov 10, 2010 7:13 am 
Jason BorroNov 11, 2010 11:47 am 
27 later messages
Subject:Re: Is 303 really necessary?
From:Pat Hayes (pha@ihmc.us)
Date:Nov 5, 2010 10:29:15 am
List:org.w3.public-lod

On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Nathan wrote:

Dave Reynolds wrote:

On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:11 +0000, Norman Gray wrote:

Greetings,

On 2010 Nov 4, at 13:22, Ian Davis wrote:

I haven't been aware of the following formulation of Ian's problem+solution in
the thread so far. Apologies if I've missed it, or if (as I guess) it's
deducible from someone's longer post.

vvvv httpRange-14 requires that a URI with a 200 response MUST be an IR; a URI with a
303 MAY be a NIR.

Ian is (effectively) suggesting that a URI with a 200 response MAY be an IR, in
the sense that it is defeasibly taken to be an IR, unless this is contradicted
by a self-referring statement within the RDF obtained from the URI. ^^^^

Is that about right? That fits in with Harry's remarks about IRW, and the
general suspicion of deriving important semantics from the details of the HTTP
transaction. Here, the only semantics derivable from the transaction is
defeasible. In the absence of RDF, this is equivalent to the httpRange-14
finding, so might require only adjustment, rather than replacement, of
httpRange-14.

Very nice. That seems like an accurate and very helpful way of looking at Ian's proposal.

The other way of looking at it, is that the once clear message of:

Don't use /slash URIs for things, use fragments, and if you flat out refuse to do this then at least use the 303 to keep distinct names

has been totally lost.

The advice is not that /slash URIs are okay and use them if you like, it's that
they're not ok and you should be using #fragments. Don't dress the TAG finding
up in other words to make it seem more favourable than it actually is.

That isnt the way I read the TAG finding. I read it as simply saying that if you
use a slash URI and you want it to denote something other than what it
http-GETs, then use a 303 redirect. Because a slash URI which returns a 200 code
is understood as being a name for the IR that it is connected to with HTTP; the
200 code amounts to a claim that HTTP has over its denotation. And the 303
cancels that claim, leaving it free to denote whatever y'all want it to denote,
just like a hash name with a fragment.

And thats all.

Pat

I think this needs to be made clear for all those who don't realise.

Best,

------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes