atom feed151 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: Is 303 really necessary?
FromSent OnAttachments
61 earlier messages
mike amundsenNov 4, 2010 3:26 pm 
Melvin CarvalhoNov 4, 2010 3:48 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 4:31 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 4:42 pm 
David BoothNov 4, 2010 5:41 pm 
mike amundsenNov 4, 2010 7:28 pm 
Leigh DoddsNov 5, 2010 2:28 am 
Michael HausenblasNov 5, 2010 2:29 am 
Leigh DoddsNov 5, 2010 2:34 am 
Leigh DoddsNov 5, 2010 2:36 am 
Leigh DoddsNov 5, 2010 2:41 am 
William WaitesNov 5, 2010 2:53 am 
Ian DavisNov 5, 2010 2:57 am 
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 
40 later messages
Subject:Re: Is 303 really necessary?
From:Norman Gray (nor@astro.gla.ac.uk)
Date:Nov 5, 2010 5:11:19 am
List:org.w3.public-lod

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.

All the best,

Norman