atom feed151 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: Is 303 really necessary?
FromSent OnAttachments
79 earlier messages
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 
Tore ErikssonNov 7, 2010 11:18 pm 
Toby InksterNov 8, 2010 12:37 am 
Toby InksterNov 8, 2010 2:11 am 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 6:40 am 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 6:42 am 
Norman GrayNov 8, 2010 7:51 am 
Toby InksterNov 8, 2010 8:03 am 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 12:34 pm 
Lars HeuerNov 8, 2010 1:17 pm 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 1:35 pm 
Dave ReynoldsNov 8, 2010 1:50 pm 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 3:34 pm 
Tore ErikssonNov 8, 2010 5:51 pm 
Dave ReynoldsNov 9, 2010 6:36 am 
Lars HeuerNov 9, 2010 8:00 am 
Kjetil KjernsmoNov 10, 2010 7:13 am 
Jason BorroNov 11, 2010 11:47 am 
David BoothNov 18, 2010 2:10 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 19, 2010 4:26 am 
David BoothNov 19, 2010 1:55 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 19, 2010 2:07 pm 
NathanNov 19, 2010 2:57 pm 
22 later messages
Subject:Re: Is 303 really necessary?
From:Norman Gray (nor@astro.gla.ac.uk)
Date:Nov 6, 2010 3:45:47 pm
List:org.w3.public-lod

David, hello.

On 2010 Nov 6, at 20:42, David Booth wrote:

httpRange-14 requires that a URI with a 200 response MUST be an IR;

^^^^^^^ Not quite. The httpRange-14 decision says that the resource *is* an IR: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039

Yes, when I phrased this, I did indeed mean it as an analytic-must rather than
an rfc2119-synthetic-must (this is the distinction you're making, yes?)

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.

To be clear, Ian's toucan URI *does* identify an information resource, whether or not it *also* identifies a toucan:

Indeed, because the decision defines what an IR is, so that Ian's toucan is
necessarily an IR in the sense in which that term is currently defined.

Thus, Ian has created an ambiguity by returning a 200 response.

(Ian can of course speak for himself, but...)

I take it that Ian is suggesting resolving the ambiguity he has created, and
thus the need for any heuristics, by extending the notion of IR in such a way
that a URI with a 200 response *is* an IR, *unless* dereferencing it returns RDF
which (authoritatively) declares that the URI is a NIR.

However, for those applications that need to distinguish between the toucan and its web page, Ian is effectively suggesting the *heuristic* that if the content served in the 200 response says that the URI identifies a toucan, then the app should ignore the fact that the URI also identifies a web page, and treat the URI as though it *only* identifies the toucan.

The suggestion does mean that the toucan URI, since it now identifies a toucan,
cannot also identify the toucan's webpage, which is therefore unnamed. I don't
know if that's a problem or not (maybe it is, if you want to be able to say "I
got this information about the toucan called </toucan> from <X>"). If it's a
problem, then perhaps the </toucan> URI could point towards a </toucan.rdf> URI
which contains the same RDF as </toucan>, but which is still an IR. Then
</toucan.rdf> is the toucan's webpage.

Best wishes,

Norman