atom feed151 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: Is 303 really necessary?
FromSent OnAttachments
11 earlier messages
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 
90 later messages
Subject:Re: Is 303 really necessary?
From:Ian Davis (me@iandavis.com)
Date:Nov 4, 2010 11:24:08 am
List:org.w3.public-lod

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Nathan <nat@webr3.org> wrote:

You see it's not about what we say, it's about what other say, and if 10  huge corps analyse the web and spit out billions of triples saying that anything 200 OK'd is a document, then at the end when we consider the RDF graph of triples, all we're going to see is one statement saying something is a "nonInformationResource" and a hundred others saying it's a document and describing what it's about together with it's format and so on.

I honestly can't see how anything could reason over a graph that looked like that.

I honestly believe that's the least of our worries. How often do you need to determine whether something in the universe of discourse is an electronic document or not compared with all the other questions you might be asking of your data. I might conceivable ask "show me all the documents about this toucan" but I'd much rather ask "show me all the data about this toucan"

However, I'm also very aware that this all may be moot any ways, because many crawlers and HTTP agents just treat HTTP like a big black box, they don't know there ever was a 303 and don't know what the end URI is (even major browser vendors like chrome do this, setting the base wrong and everything) - so even the current 303 pattern doesn't keep different things with different names for /slash URIs in all cases.

That's true. I don't suppose any of the big crawlers care about the semantics of 303 because none of them care about the difference between a thing and its description. For example the Google OpenSocial doesn't give a hoot about the difference and yet seems to still function. As I say above, this document/thing distinction is actually quite small area to focus on compared with the the real problems of analysing the web of data as a whole.

Best,

Ian