|34 earlier messages|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 11:18 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 11:24 am|
|Robert Fuller||Nov 4, 2010 11:38 am|
|Nathan||Nov 4, 2010 11:39 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 11:42 am|
|Jörn Hees||Nov 4, 2010 11:46 am|
|Nathan||Nov 4, 2010 11:46 am|
|Robert Fuller||Nov 4, 2010 11:48 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 11:59 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 12:00 pm|
|Harry Halpin||Nov 4, 2010 12:04 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 12:07 pm|
|Jörn Hees||Nov 4, 2010 12:10 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 12:12 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 12:12 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 12:14 pm|
|Nathan||Nov 4, 2010 12:26 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 12:37 pm|
|David Wood||Nov 4, 2010 12:57 pm|
|Hugh Glaser||Nov 4, 2010 1:00 pm|
|David Wood||Nov 4, 2010 1:14 pm|
|Nathan||Nov 4, 2010 1:23 pm|
|Bradley Allen||Nov 4, 2010 1:40 pm|
|Mischa Tuffield||Nov 4, 2010 2:09 pm|
|David Booth||Nov 4, 2010 3:10 pm|
|David Booth||Nov 4, 2010 3:11 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 3:24 pm|
|mike amundsen||Nov 4, 2010 3:27 pm|
|Melvin Carvalho||Nov 4, 2010 3:48 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 4:32 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 4:43 pm|
|David Booth||Nov 4, 2010 5:42 pm|
|mike amundsen||Nov 4, 2010 7:29 pm|
|Leigh Dodds||Nov 5, 2010 2:28 am|
|Michael Hausenblas||Nov 5, 2010 2:29 am|
|Leigh Dodds||Nov 5, 2010 2:34 am|
|Leigh Dodds||Nov 5, 2010 2:37 am|
|Leigh Dodds||Nov 5, 2010 2:42 am|
|William Waites||Nov 5, 2010 2:54 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 5, 2010 2:57 am|
|Nathan||Nov 5, 2010 3:05 am|
|Nathan||Nov 5, 2010 3:12 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 5, 2010 3:17 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 5, 2010 3:24 am|
|Nathan||Nov 5, 2010 3:34 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 5, 2010 3:40 am|
|Nathan||Nov 5, 2010 3:57 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 5, 2010 3:59 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 5, 2010 4:02 am|
|Nathan||Nov 5, 2010 4:15 am|
|67 later messages|
|Subject:||Re: Is 303 really necessary?|
|From:||David Booth (dav...@dbooth.org)|
|Date:||Nov 4, 2010 3:10:02 pm|
You raise two issues: 1. Whether there is need to use different URIs for the toucan versus the toucan's web page; and if so (2) how to get from one URI to the other.
ISSUE 1: Whether there is need to use different URIs for the toucan versus the toucan's web page. Some time ago I showed that there is no *architectural* need to distinguish between the two: http://dbooth.org/2007/splitting/ (Sorry that page is a bit messy, but the reasoning is sound.) The essential reason is that the ambiguity created by using the same URI for both is not fundamentally different from the ambiguity that *always* exists when a resource is defined. Ambiguity depends on the application: a description (or "URI declaration") that is perfectly unambiguous to one application may be ambiguous to another application that needs to make finer distinctions.
For a fairly clear explanation of how ambiguity works in RDF semantics, see "Resource Identity and Semantic Extensions: Making Sense of Ambiguity": http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/
However, given that many applications *will* wish to distinguish between the toucan and its web page (or between the toucan's age and the age of it's web page), it is a *good* *practice* to use a different URI for each, as recommended, for example, in both the W3C Architecture of the World Wide Web: http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision and in Cool URIs for the Semantic Web: http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#distinguishing
ISSUE 2: How to get from the URI of the toucan to the URI of the toucan's web page. You state that "we should link the thing to its description using a triple rather than a network response code". While I agree 100% that a triple like
<Utoucan> :isDescribedBy <Upage> .
is far more efficient than a network response code, and *should* be used when available, it is *also* useful to make the Utoucan URI dereferenceable for those times when: (a) you have Utoucan but not that triple; or (b) you wish to verify that Upage *is* the correct page for the Utoucan declaration.
Also please note that if you mint your URIs using a 303-redirect service such as http://thing-described-by.org/ then the extra network hop from the 303 redirect could be optimized away by parsing the URI, as described here: http://thing-described-by.org/#optimizing For example, you would have the relationship:
so if the toucan were denoted by the URI http://t-d-b.org/?http://example/toucan-page the you know that its description is located at http://example/toucan-page and there is no need to actually dereference the other URI.
Your blog post states:
http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary There are several disadvantages to the 303 redirect approach: 1. it requires an extra round-trip to the server for every request
2. only one description can be linked from the toucan's URI
True, but that's far better than zero, if you only have the toucan URI and it returns 404!
3. the user enters one URI into their browser and ends up at a different one, causing confusion when they want to reuse the URI of the toucan. Often they use the document URI by mistake.
Yes, that's a problem. The trade-off is ambiguity.
4. its non-trivial to configure a web server to issue the correct redirect and only to do so for the things that are not information resources.
It is trivial to mint your URIs if you use a 303-redirect service such as http://thing-described-by.org/
5. the server operator has to decide which resources are information resources and which are not without any precise guidance on how to distinguish the two (the official definition speaks of things whose "essential characteristics can be conveyed in a message"). I enumerate some examples here but it's easy to get to the absurd.
I addressed the server configuration issue above, but the other issue -- how do I know whether something should be considered an "information resource" or not -- does cause confusion. But in fact it boils down to the inherent problem of ambiguity that will never go away: what's ambiguous to one application may be ambiguous to another application that requires finer distinctions.
6. it cannot be implemented using a static web server setup, i.e. one that serves static RDF documents
Agreed, but it can be done using a standard service, as mentioned above.
7. it mixes layers of responsibility - there is information a user cannot know without making a network request and inspecting the metadata about the response to that request. When the web server ceases to exist then that information is lost.
I don't buy this argument. While I agree that explicit statements such as
<Utoucan> :isDescribedBy <Upage> .
is helpful and should be provided, that does *not* mean that links are not *also* useful. Just because links do not *always* work does not mean that they are useless.
8. the 303 response can really only be used with things that aren't information resources. You can't serve up an information resource (such as a spreadsheet) and 303 redirect to metadata about the spreadsheet at the same time.
Of course you can, but you do it the opposite way:
UspreadsheetMetadata --303--> Uspreadsheet
Or in RDF:
<Uspreadsheet> :isDescribedBy <UspreadsheetMetadata> .
9. having to explain the reasoning behind using 303 redirects to mainstream web developers simply reinforces the perception that the semantic web is baroque and irrelevant to their needs.
Yes, that is a problem.
-- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.