atom feed151 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: Is 303 really necessary?
FromSent OnAttachments
8 earlier messages
William WaitesNov 4, 2010 8:44 am 
Giovanni TummarelloNov 4, 2010 8:50 am 
Leigh DoddsNov 4, 2010 8:53 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 8:56 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 8:58 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 9:06 am 
Bradley AllenNov 4, 2010 9:07 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 9:10 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 9:13 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 9:17 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 9:52 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 9:55 am 
David WoodNov 4, 2010 9:56 am 
Mike KellyNov 4, 2010 10:12 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 10:14 am 
Patrick DurusauNov 4, 2010 10:17 am 
David WoodNov 4, 2010 10:24 am 
Patrick DurusauNov 4, 2010 10:37 am 
NathanNov 4, 2010 10:51 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 11:06 am 
NathanNov 4, 2010 11:08 am 
Patrick DurusauNov 4, 2010 11:09 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 11:39 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 11:42 am 
Jörn HeesNov 4, 2010 11:46 am 
NathanNov 4, 2010 11:46 am 
Robert FullerNov 4, 2010 11:48 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 11:59 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 12:00 pm 
Harry HalpinNov 4, 2010 12:04 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 12:37 pm 
David WoodNov 4, 2010 12:57 pm 
Hugh GlaserNov 4, 2010 1:00 pm 
David WoodNov 4, 2010 1:14 pm 
NathanNov 4, 2010 1:23 pm 
Bradley AllenNov 4, 2010 1:40 pm 
Mischa TuffieldNov 4, 2010 2:09 pm 
93 later messages
Subject:Re: Is 303 really necessary?
From:Nathan (nat@webr3.org)
Date:Nov 4, 2010 11:08:08 am
List:org.w3.public-lod

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

Harry,

Whilst I agree with all your reasons and have also raised the odata point myself on this list a few times, I can't agree that any kind of ontology is going to help with this.

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.

I honestly can't see how anything could reason over a graph that looked like that.

However, I'm also very aware that this all may be moot any ways, because many crawlers and HTTP agents just treat HTTP like a big black box, they don't know there ever was a 303 and don't know what the end URI is (even major browser vendors like chrome do this, setting the base wrong and everything) - so even the current 303 pattern doesn't keep different things with different names for /slash URIs in all cases.

Best,