atom feed151 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: Is 303 really necessary?
FromSent OnAttachments
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 6:21 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 7:13 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 7:22 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 7:59 am 
Giovanni TummarelloNov 4, 2010 8:20 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 8:22 am 
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 
76 later messages
Subject:Re: Is 303 really necessary?
From:David Wood (dav@3roundstones.com)
Date:Nov 4, 2010 9:56:31 am
List:org.w3.public-lod

Hi all,

This is a horrible idea, for the following reasons (in my opinion and suitably
caveated):

- Some small number of people and organizations need to provide back-links on
the Web since the Web doesn't have them. 303s provide a generic mechanism for
that to occur. URL curation is a useful and proper activity on the Web, again
in my opinion.

- Overloading the use of 200 (OK) for metadata creates an additional ambiguity
in that the address of a resource is now conflated with the address of a
resource described by metadata.

- W3C TAG findings such as http-range-14 are really very difficult to overcome
socially.

- Wide-spread mishandling of HTTP content negotiation makes it difficult if not
impossible to rely upon. Until we can get browser vendors and server vendors to
handle content negotiation in a reasonable way, reliance on it is not a
realistic option. That means that there needs to be an out-of-band mechanism to
disambiguate physical, virtual and conceptual resources on the Web. 303s plus
http-range-14 provide enough flexibility to do that; I'm not convinced that
overloading 200 does.

/me ducks for the inevitable mud slinging this list has become.

Regards, Dave

On Nov 4, 2010, at 12:33, Harry Halpin wrote:

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com> wrote:

Hi all,

The subject of this email is the title of a blog post I wrote last night questioning whether we actually need to continue with the 303 redirect approach for Linked Data. My suggestion is that replacing it with a 200 is in practice harmless and that nothing actually breaks on the web. Please take a moment to read it if you are interested.

http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary

In a purely personal capacity, I like the approach of just using 200, i.e. with RDFa or whatever, rather than 303. If we want to disambiguate URIs, the IRW ontology [1] offers a nice class called "nonInformationResource" and "InformationResource" that one can use to disambiguate. See this paper [2] on "an Ontology of Resources for Linked Data" for a walk-through example.

My reasoning is not architectural, but simply efficiency. It is rather inefficient to have a redirection in the form of a 303 if one can get the same info without using 303.

Note that Microsoft's oData may one day be a serious competitor to Linked Data, and if you asked many programmers and open data people who are not already committed to RDF if they would use Atom + HTTP GET and no redirects over RDF/XML and a weird 303 redirect, I think the answer would be rather self-evident.

[1]http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/web/irw.owl [2]http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2009/papers/ldow2009_paper19.pdf

Cheers,