atom feed151 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: Is 303 really necessary?
FromSent OnAttachments
57 earlier messages
Mischa TuffieldNov 4, 2010 2:09 pm 
David BoothNov 4, 2010 3:10 pm 
David BoothNov 4, 2010 3:11 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 3:24 pm 
mike amundsenNov 4, 2010 3:27 pm 
Melvin CarvalhoNov 4, 2010 3:48 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 4:32 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 4:43 pm 
David BoothNov 4, 2010 5:42 pm 
mike amundsenNov 4, 2010 7:29 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 2:37 am 
Leigh DoddsNov 5, 2010 2:42 am 
William WaitesNov 5, 2010 2:54 am 
Ian DavisNov 5, 2010 2:57 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 3:05 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 3:12 am 
Ian DavisNov 5, 2010 3:17 am 
Ian DavisNov 5, 2010 3:24 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 3:34 am 
Ian DavisNov 5, 2010 3:40 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 3:57 am 
Ian DavisNov 5, 2010 3:59 am 
Ian DavisNov 5, 2010 4:02 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 4:15 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 5:57 am 
Vasiliy FaronovNov 5, 2010 6:00 am 
Vasiliy FaronovNov 5, 2010 6:33 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 7:18 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 8:40 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 5, 2010 9:36 am 
Pat HayesNov 5, 2010 10:29 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 5, 2010 10:31 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 10:37 am 
Hugh GlaserNov 5, 2010 10:50 am 
David BoothNov 6, 2010 1:42 pm 
Norman GrayNov 6, 2010 3:45 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 6, 2010 4:08 pm 
David BoothNov 7, 2010 10:27 pm 
David BoothNov 7, 2010 10:28 pm 
44 later messages
Subject:Re: Is 303 really necessary?
From:Ian Davis (me@iandavis.com)
Date:Nov 5, 2010 3:59:28 am
List:org.w3.public-lod

Hi David,

Rather than respond to each of your points let me say that I agree with most of them :) I have snipped away the things I agree with in principle, and left the things I want to discuss further.

I have a question about http://thing-described-by.org/ - how does it work when my description document describes multiple things? Really, any RDF document that references more than one resource as a subject or object can be considered to be providing a description of all those resources.

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:10 PM, David Booth <dav@dbooth.org> wrote:

 2. only one description can be linked from the toucan's URI

True, but that's far better than zero, if you only have the toucan URI and it returns 404!

It could return 204.

 3. the user enters one URI into their browser and ends up at a different one, causing confusion when they want to reuse the URI of the toucan. Often they use the document URI by mistake.

Yes, that's a problem.  The trade-off is ambiguity.

I don't think so. The ambiguity is not present because the data explicitly distinguishes the two URIs (and content-location header does too).

 7. it mixes layers of responsibility - there is information a user cannot know without making a network request and inspecting the metadata about the response to that request. When the web server ceases to exist then that information is lost.

I don't buy this argument.  While I agree that explicit statements such as

 <Utoucan> :isDescribedBy <Upage> .

is helpful and should be provided, that does *not* mean that links are not *also* useful.  Just because links do not *always* work does not mean that they are useless.

But you agree that under the current scheme, some things are knowable only by making a network request. It's not enough to have just the RDF description document?

Cheers,

Ian