On 11/4/10 12:06 PM, Ian Davis wrote:

100%.

But taking your line of thought, of what relevance to the main topic?

I think you are, of course this could be inadvertent, at least so I hope.

That document has 3 occurrences of "must", not a single occurrence applies to 303 redirection. Zero occurrences of "mandate" .

Zero occurrences of "must" or "mandate" .

6 occurrences of must, proximity shown in snippet below for context:

"... URIs that identify non-information resources must be set up in ** one of these ways **: Either the data source must return an HTTP response containing an HTTP 303 redirect to an information resource describing the non-information resource, as discussed earlier in this document. Or the URI for the non-information resource must be formed by taking the URI of the related information resource and appending a fragment identifier (e.g. #foo), as discussed in Recipe 7.1. ..."

IMHO. You've jumped to a conclusion, and then pivoted from there, as per my initial assertion.

Nobody ever mandated 303 redirection. It has always been an option, and so it should remain.

Not noise!

URI Abstraction covers:

1. Names -- may or may not resolve 2. Addresses (URLs) -- where data resides.

Using what looks like an Address as a Name, doesn't undermine existence of the Name aspect re. overarching URI abstraction.

Linked Data, the concept, mandates that the data is Human or Machine decipherable ("useful") via structure outlined via a data model.

We did have a computer industry pre. Web. TimBL's URI abstraction is one of the coolest innovations ever! It also remains one of the most widely misunderstood innovations ever!

URI abstraction is why the concept of Linked Data at InterWeb scale is going to happen. Just as the Web of Linked Documents has, also at InterWeb scale.

[SNIP]

BTW - how would you explain your claim on Twitter about 303 being dropped? Here is the excerpt:

@iand: seems that the lod mailing list is overwhelmingly supportive of **dropping** 303 redirects #linkeddata.

I guess the statement above is also accurate, clear, and reflective of this conversation, right?

Regards,