atom feed151 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: Is 303 really necessary?
FromSent OnAttachments
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 6:22 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 7:13 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 7:22 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 8:00 am 
Giovanni TummarelloNov 4, 2010 8:21 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 8:23 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 8:27 am 
Leigh DoddsNov 4, 2010 8:38 am 
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 
120 later messages
Subject:Re: Is 303 really necessary?
From:Ian Davis (
Date:Nov 4, 2010 8:23:14 am

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Kingsley Idehen <> wrote:

On 11/4/10 10:22 AM, Ian Davis wrote:

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Kingsley Idehen<>  wrote:


Q: Is 303 really necessary?

A: Yes, it is.

Why? Read on...

I don't think you explain this in your email.

What's the problem with having many options re. mechanics for associating an HTTP based Entity Name with a Descriptor Resource Address?

Do you mean associate a resource with a description? Or do you mean something else? Can you rephrase using the terminology that everyone else uses please.

Who is everyone else? How about the fact that terminology that you presume to be common is actually uncommon across broader spectrum computing.

I don't presume. I prefer to use terms that are familiar with the people on this list who might be reading the message. Introducing unnecessary capitalised phrases distracts from the message.

Anyway, translation:

What's the problem with having a variety of methods for using LINKs to associate a "Non Information Resource" with an "Information Resource" that  describes it (i.e., carries its structured representation)? Why place an implementation detail at the front of the Linked Data narrative?

It's already at the front, and as I say in my post it's an impediment to using Linked Data by mainstream developers. This is an implementation detail that I think could do with improving, making it simpler and in fact removing it from the front of the "narrative". It just becomes like commonplace web publishing. Do you agree that's a good goal to strive for?

We shouldn't be narrowing options for implementing the fundamental essence of Linked Data -- hypermedia based data representation. Of course, we can discuss and debate individual, product, or organization preferences etc.. But please lets not push these as mandates. We should never mandate that 303's are bad, never. Its an implementation detail, no more no less.

I'm suggesting that we relax a mandate to always use 303 and since you're saying we must not narrow options then you seem to be supporting my suggestion,

I didn't know there was a mandate to always use 303. Hence my comments.

There is. I find it surprising that you're unaware of it because it's in all the primary documents about publishing Linked Data.

The only thing that should be mandatory re. Linked Data is this:  HTTP based Entity Names should Resolve to structured Descriptors that are Human and/or Machine decipherable.

Are you saying that requesting a URI should return a description document?

Resolve to a Descriptor Document which may exist in a variety of formats. Likewise, Descriptor documents (RDF docs, for instance) should clearly identify their Subject(s) via HTTP URI based Names.

Example (in this example we have 1:1 re. Entity Name and Descriptor for sake of simplicity):

<> -- Name <> -- Descriptor Resource (HTML+RDFa) this resource will expose other representations via <head/> (<link/> + @rel) or "Link:" in response headers etc..

Not sure what you are trying to say here. I must be misunderstanding because you appear to be claiming that <> is a name but <> is a resource.

Assuming you are using angle brackets like they are used in Turtle then I think they are both resources.

I would say:

<> -- a resource named by the string "" <> -- a resource named by the string ""

Also, in my view the first resource is actually the city of paris whereas the second is a document about the first resource.

I don't really see what relevance this all has to the issue of 303 redirection though. We are all agreed that things are not usually their own descriptions, we are discussing how that knowledge should be conveyed using Linked Data.

Ironically, bearing in mind my comments, we do arrive at the same conclusion, but in different ways. I phrase my conclusion as: heuristics for implementing HTTP based Entity Names that Resolve to structured Descriptor Resources shouldn't dominate the Linked Data narrative, especially as comprehension of the fundamental concept remains mercurial.

So are you contradicting your answer at the start of the post?


I am saying, what I've already stated: heuristics re. essence of Linked Data mechanics shouldn't front the conversation. You sort of arrive there too, but we differ re. mandates.

See my comment above: I am removing them from the front.

Potential point of reconciliation:

You assumed that 303 is an existing mandate. I am totally unaware of any such mandate.

See above.

I don't even buy into HTTP scheme based Names as a mandate, they simply make the most sense courtesy of Web ubiquity.  As is already the case re., LINK semantics [1], Hammer stack [2], and WebFinger [3], mailto: and acct: schemes work fine as Resolvable Names for Linked Data. In addition, XRD [4] also works fine as Descriptor Doc option.

This is an irrelevant point because 303 redirection only applies to HTTP. So if you're not using HTTP then it doesn't apply to you and you can ignore my post. I'm not sure why you bring this up in your comments.

To sum the broader picture up here: let's be inclusive rather than exclusive re. Linked Data.

I'm not disagreeing, but I don't see what that statement adds to the debate.