atom feed151 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: Is 303 really necessary?
FromSent OnAttachments
6 earlier messages
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 8:27 am 
Leigh DoddsNov 4, 2010 8:38 am 
William WaitesNov 4, 2010 8:43 am 
Giovanni TummarelloNov 4, 2010 8:50 am 
Leigh DoddsNov 4, 2010 8:53 am 
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 
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 
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 8:39 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 5, 2010 9:35 am 
Pat HayesNov 5, 2010 10:29 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 5, 2010 10:30 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 10:37 am 
Hugh GlaserNov 5, 2010 10:50 am 
David BoothNov 6, 2010 1:41 pm 
Norman GrayNov 6, 2010 3:45 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 6, 2010 4:07 pm 
David BoothNov 7, 2010 10:27 pm 
45 later messages
Subject:Re: Is 303 really necessary?
From:Nathan (nat@webr3.org)
Date:Nov 4, 2010 1:22:43 pm
List:org.w3.public-lod

David Wood wrote:

On Nov 4, 2010, at 15:04, Harry Halpin wrote:

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com> wrote:

On Thursday, November 4, 2010, Nathan <nat@webr3.org> wrote:

Please, don't.

303 is a PITA, and it has detrimental affects across the board from network load
through to server admin. Likewise #frag URIs have there own set of PITA features
(although they are nicer on the network and servers).

However, and very critically (if you can get more critical than critical!), both
of these patterns / constraints are here to ensure that different things have
different names, and without that distinction our data is junk.

I agree with this and I address it in my blog post where I say we should link the thing to its description using a triple rather than a network response code.

This is key. The issue with 303 is that it uses a "network response code" to make a semantic distinction that can (and likely should) be done in the data-format itself, i.e. distinguishing a name for the data for the name identified by the thing itself. To be precise, you can state (ex:thing isDescribedBy ex:document, ex:thing rdf:type irw:nonInformationResource) in ex:document that is full of statements about ex:thing, and a half-way intelligent RDF parser should be able to sort that out.

Yes, I agree this is the key point. You might note that an HTTP request to a
resource that returns an RDF document (of whatever RDF serialization syntax)
will already give you a 200 in many cases and that is "correct" in that an RDF
document is an information resource. However, what it describes may not be. In
the case where you are describing a non-information resource, using a 303
provides a benefit in that the clue to the type of resource is accessible before
parsing the document.

It seems that Ian has made an efficiency argument. Which is cheaper? Getting a
clue from a network response code or parsing a representation?

There is another argument, of which efficiency is a part. Given:

</thing> -> 303 -> </doc>

(1) Many automated clients that make assertions about URIs treat HTTP as a blackbox, thus are still saying </thing> a :Document . (original problem not solved)

(2) Many Humans are clicking on </thing> getting the </doc> URI in their address bar then using that instead, saying that </doc> a :Thing . (new problem)

(3) Network effect of 303 (2 requests) vs 200 (single request), as well as deployment considerations.

Completely leaving frag ids out of the equation, it appears (to me at least) that new insight is that 303 isn't addressing the problem (1) and rather introducing more (2) and (3).

I fear that by adding all this in to the mix, the main message, "use different names for different things" has been lost.

URI syntax doesn't matter to RDF - scheme, slash or hash, all that's important is the one name one thing relation, the link between name and thing named. If we can ensure this happens the majority of the time using 200 OK, then why not?

Disclaimer: I'd never use a slash URI myself for anything other than a doc, but realise some/many do, and that a lot of deployed data already does use it. Fact is if you use any /slash URI over HTTP then somebody/something somewhere will be saying it's a Document, even if that's just your apache log files RDF'ized.

Best,