atom feed151 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: Is 303 really necessary?
FromSent OnAttachments
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 6:21 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 7:13 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 7:22 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 7:59 am 
Giovanni TummarelloNov 4, 2010 8:20 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 8:22 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 8:27 am 
Leigh DoddsNov 4, 2010 8:38 am 
William WaitesNov 4, 2010 8:43 am 
Giovanni TummarelloNov 4, 2010 8:50 am 
Leigh DoddsNov 4, 2010 8:53 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 8:55 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 8:57 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 9:06 am 
Bradley AllenNov 4, 2010 9:06 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 9:10 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 9:13 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 9:16 am 
bill...@planet.nlNov 4, 2010 9:20 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 9:22 am 
Bradley AllenNov 4, 2010 9:25 am 
Harry HalpinNov 4, 2010 9:33 am 
Robin YANGNov 4, 2010 9:51 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 9:54 am 
David WoodNov 4, 2010 9:56 am 
Mike KellyNov 4, 2010 10:12 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 10:13 am 
Patrick DurusauNov 4, 2010 10:17 am 
David WoodNov 4, 2010 10:24 am 
Patrick DurusauNov 4, 2010 10:36 am 
NathanNov 4, 2010 10:51 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 11:06 am 
NathanNov 4, 2010 11:07 am 
Patrick DurusauNov 4, 2010 11:08 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 11:18 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 11:24 am 
Robert FullerNov 4, 2010 11:38 am 
NathanNov 4, 2010 11:38 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 11:41 am 
Jörn HeesNov 4, 2010 11:45 am 
NathanNov 4, 2010 11:46 am 
Robert FullerNov 4, 2010 11:48 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 11:58 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 12:00 pm 
Harry HalpinNov 4, 2010 12:03 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 12:07 pm 
Jörn HeesNov 4, 2010 12:10 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 12:12 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 12:12 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 12:14 pm 
NathanNov 4, 2010 12:26 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 12:36 pm 
David WoodNov 4, 2010 12:56 pm 
Hugh GlaserNov 4, 2010 12:59 pm 
David WoodNov 4, 2010 1:14 pm 
NathanNov 4, 2010 1:22 pm 
Bradley AllenNov 4, 2010 1:40 pm 
Mischa TuffieldNov 4, 2010 2:09 pm 
David BoothNov 4, 2010 3:09 pm 
David BoothNov 4, 2010 3:11 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 3:24 pm 
mike amundsenNov 4, 2010 3:26 pm 
Melvin CarvalhoNov 4, 2010 3:48 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 4:31 pm 
87 later messages
Subject:Re: Is 303 really necessary?
From:Ian Davis (me@iandavis.com)
Date:Nov 4, 2010 9:06:34 am
List:org.w3.public-lod

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kide@openlinksw.com> wrote:

I don't presume. I prefer to use terms that are familiar with the people on this list who might be reading the message. Introducing unnecessary capitalised phrases distracts from the message.

Again, you presume. Capitalization might not work for you, but you are not the equivalent of an entire mailing list audience. You are one individual entitled to a personal opinion and preferences.

I hope you agree i have the freedom to express those opinions.

Anyway, translation:

What's the problem with having a variety of methods for using LINKs to associate a "Non Information Resource" with an "Information Resource" that  describes it (i.e., carries its structured representation)? Why place an implementation detail at the front of the Linked Data narrative?

It's already at the front, and as I say in my post it's an impediment to using Linked Data by mainstream developers.

I don't believe its already at the front. I can understand if there was some quasi mandate that put it at the front. Again, you are jumping to conclusions, then pivoting off the conclusions to make a point. IMHO: Net effect, Linked Data concept murkiness and distraction. You are inadvertently perpetuating a misconception.

Thank you for your opinion. I don't believe I am jumping to conclusions.

There is. I find it surprising that you're unaware of it because it's in all the primary documents about publishing Linked Data.

Please provide a URL for the document that establishes this mandate. I know of no such document. Of course I am aware of documents that offer suggestions and best practice style guidelines.

Here is one cited by Leigh just now: http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/

Also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html

And http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/

The only thing that should be mandatory re. Linked Data is this:  HTTP based Entity Names should Resolve to structured Descriptors that are Human and/or Machine decipherable.

Are you saying that requesting a URI should return a description document?

Resolve to a Descriptor Document which may exist in a variety of formats. Likewise, Descriptor documents (RDF docs, for instance) should clearly identify their Subject(s) via HTTP URI based Names.

Example (in this example we have 1:1 re. Entity Name and Descriptor for sake of simplicity):

<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paris>  -- Name <http://dbpedia.org/page/Paris>  -- Descriptor Resource (HTML+RDFa) this resource will expose other representations via<head/>  (<link/>  + @rel) or "Link:" in response headers etc..

Not sure what you are trying to say here. I must be misunderstanding because you appear to be claiming that <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paris>  is a name but

That is a Name via HTTP URI (using its Name aspect).

This is an interesting distinction between the resource and a name. Can you restate it in a new thread so we don't add noise to the 303 discussion

I don't really see what relevance this all has to the issue of 303 redirection though. We are all agreed that things are not usually their own descriptions, we are discussing how that knowledge should be conveyed using Linked Data.

Of course, my comments are irrelevant, off topic. If that works for you, then good for you. You spent all this time debating an irrelevance.

That looks like a natural close to this particular part of the debate then.

FWIW - 303 is an implementation detail, RDF is an implementation detail, and so is SPARQL. When you front line any conversation about the concept of Linked Data with any of the aforementioned, you are only going to make the core concept incomprehensible.

Ian