atom feed151 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: Is 303 really necessary?
FromSent OnAttachments
42 earlier messages
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 
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 
59 later messages
Subject:Re: Is 303 really necessary?
From:mike amundsen (mam@yahoo.com)
Date:Nov 4, 2010 7:28:39 pm
List:org.w3.public-lod

<snip>

It is *a* solution -- not necessarily *the* solution.

</snip> understood.

<snip>

 And if you don't want it centralized, there are ways to get around that also, which I discussed in 2005: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0057.html

</snip> The alternate method described there looks (to me) quite a bit like Ian's proposal (using a triple to sort out the indirection).

<snip> It is conceptually similar in that it can define its own conventions and semantics. </snip> yes, that was my observation.

<snip> However, the key point is that it is *layered* on the good old http scheme. Thus, if you click on this URI:

http://t-d-b.org/?http://dbooth.org/2005/dbooth/

it works, with no changes needed to your browser </snip> So the thinking here is to use the "concept" of a scheme without actually minting one because the most common client today would throw an error if an actual scheme was used, right?

mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me

#RESTFest 2010 http://rest-fest.googlecode.com

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 20:42, David Booth <dav@dbooth.org> wrote:

On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 18:27 -0400, mike amundsen wrote:

<snip> 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:

 <http://t-d-b.org/?http://example/toucan-page>      :isDescribedBy           <http://example/toucan-page> . </snip> So the solution is to introduce a URI convention (assigning meaning to the convention) and use a central service to implement this feature.

It is *a* solution -- not necessarily *the* solution.  And if you don't want it centralized, there are ways to get around that also, which I discussed in 2005: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0057.html

<snip> 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. </snip> And to expect consumers of the URI to also understand and honor that convention.

That sure looks|sounds to me like a new URI scheme.

It is not a URI scheme as defined in RFC 3986: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986 It is conceptually similar in that it can define its own conventions and semantics.  However, the key point is that it is *layered* on the good old http scheme.  Thus, if you click on this URI:

 http://t-d-b.org/?http://dbooth.org/2005/dbooth/

it works, with no changes needed to your browser.  In contrast, if you click on this URI:

 tdb:http://dbooth.org/2005/dbooth/

You get an error.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.