Greetings,

On 2010 Nov 4, at 13:22, Ian Davis wrote:

I haven't been aware of the following formulation of Ian's problem+solution in the thread so far. Apologies if I've missed it, or if (as I guess) it's deducible from someone's longer post.

vvvv httpRange-14 requires that a URI with a 200 response MUST be an IR; a URI with a 303 MAY be a NIR.

Ian is (effectively) suggesting that a URI with a 200 response MAY be an IR, in the sense that it is defeasibly taken to be an IR, unless this is contradicted by a self-referring statement within the RDF obtained from the URI. ^^^^

Is that about right? That fits in with Harry's remarks about IRW, and the general suspicion of deriving important semantics from the details of the HTTP transaction. Here, the only semantics derivable from the transaction is defeasible. In the absence of RDF, this is equivalent to the httpRange-14 finding, so might require only adjustment, rather than replacement, of httpRange-14.