atom feed151 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: Is 303 really necessary?
FromSent OnAttachments
50 earlier messages
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 
51 later messages
Subject:Re: Is 303 really necessary?
From:Nathan (nat@webr3.org)
Date:Nov 5, 2010 3:05:13 am
List:org.w3.public-lod

Leigh Dodds wrote:

Hi Nathan,

On 4 November 2010 18:08, 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.

Are you suggesting that Linked Data crawlers could/should look at the status code and use that to infer new statements about the resources returned? If so, I think that's the first time I've seen that mentioned, and am curious as to why someone would do it. Surely all of the useful information is in the data itself.

Not at all, I'm saying that if big-corp makes a /web crawler/ that describes what documents are about and publishes RDF triples, then if you use 200 OK, throughout the web you'll get (statements similar to) the following asserted:

</toucan> :primaryTopic dbpedia:Toucan ; a :Document .

Now, move down the line a couple of years and reason over the a triple dump of the web-of-data and you'll find the problem, way to solve the problem is to first strip everything that's a :Document, so all the slash URIs will be stripped, including the </toucan>.

I'm also saying that 303 doesn't solve this half the time either, because most HTTP clients blackbox the process, so their process is:

uri = "/toucan"; doc = get( uri ); makeStatements( uri , doc );

Again, same problem.

Best,