|28 earlier messages|
|David Wood||Nov 4, 2010 10:24 am|
|Patrick Durusau||Nov 4, 2010 10:37 am|
|Nathan||Nov 4, 2010 10:51 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 11:06 am|
|Nathan||Nov 4, 2010 11:08 am|
|Patrick Durusau||Nov 4, 2010 11:09 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 11:18 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 11:24 am|
|Robert Fuller||Nov 4, 2010 11:38 am|
|Nathan||Nov 4, 2010 11:39 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 11:42 am|
|Jörn Hees||Nov 4, 2010 11:46 am|
|Nathan||Nov 4, 2010 11:46 am|
|Robert Fuller||Nov 4, 2010 11:48 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 11:59 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 12:00 pm|
|Harry Halpin||Nov 4, 2010 12:04 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 12:07 pm|
|Jörn Hees||Nov 4, 2010 12:10 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 12:12 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 12:12 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 12:14 pm|
|Nathan||Nov 4, 2010 12:26 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 12:37 pm|
|David Wood||Nov 4, 2010 12:57 pm|
|Hugh Glaser||Nov 4, 2010 1:00 pm|
|David Wood||Nov 4, 2010 1:14 pm|
|Nathan||Nov 4, 2010 1:23 pm|
|Bradley Allen||Nov 4, 2010 1:40 pm|
|Mischa Tuffield||Nov 4, 2010 2:09 pm|
|David Booth||Nov 4, 2010 3:10 pm|
|David Booth||Nov 4, 2010 3:11 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 3:24 pm|
|mike amundsen||Nov 4, 2010 3:27 pm|
|Melvin Carvalho||Nov 4, 2010 3:48 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 4:32 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 4:43 pm|
|David Booth||Nov 4, 2010 5:42 pm|
|mike amundsen||Nov 4, 2010 7:29 pm|
|Leigh Dodds||Nov 5, 2010 2:28 am|
|Michael Hausenblas||Nov 5, 2010 2:29 am|
|Leigh Dodds||Nov 5, 2010 2:34 am|
|Leigh Dodds||Nov 5, 2010 2:37 am|
|Leigh Dodds||Nov 5, 2010 2:42 am|
|William Waites||Nov 5, 2010 2:54 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 5, 2010 2:57 am|
|Nathan||Nov 5, 2010 3:05 am|
|Nathan||Nov 5, 2010 3:12 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 5, 2010 3:17 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 5, 2010 3:24 am|
|73 later messages|
|Subject:||Re: Is 303 really necessary?|
|From:||David Wood (dav...@3roundstones.com)|
|Date:||Nov 4, 2010 12:57:13 pm|
On Nov 4, 2010, at 13:14, Ian Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:56 PM, David Wood <dav...@3roundstones.com> wrote:
This is a horrible idea, for the following reasons (in my opinion and suitably
- 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.
The relationship between 303 redirection and backlinks isn't clear to me. Can you expand?
Sure. I should have said that *PURLs and DOIs* provide a general solution to
back links and use 303s.
Exploitation of relationships between resources on the Web remains incomplete
for an excellent reason: The very design decision that allowed the Web to scale
(distribution of resource servers) removed the ability to monitor links
bidirectionally (the link maintenance problem). Prior to the Web, all hypertext
systems were centralized and all included back-links.
Some services exist to track and retain inter-resource metadata, such as
Technorati. Technorati requires a publisher to register with them so that
inter-resource monitoring may be accomplished. PURLs and DOIs allow other third
parties, including the general public, to provide links to arbitrary resources
that may be maintained with time. If a resource that you point to moves, you
just change the URL that a PURL or DOI resolves to.
303s come into the picture when the resource that you point to is not
(technically, *may* not be) an information resource, but the use case is the
- 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.
My post addresses that case. I don't encourage people to use the same URI for both the metadata and the thing but to link them using a new predicate ex:isDescribedBy. I also say that you should believe the data. If the data says the thing you dereferenced is a document then that's what you should assume it is. If it says it's a toucan then that's what it is.
Yes, I agree that your post addresses that case. Your solution is a reasonable
one and is even implementable. I've had similar thoughts in the past. However,
I don't see a need to get rid of the 303 to implement your proposal.
- W3C TAG findings such as http-range-14 are really very difficult to overcome
Maybe so, but I don't think that should stop 5 years of deployment experience from informing a change of practice. This isn't really relevant to my main question though: what breaks on the web.
- 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.
My proposal isn't dependent on conneg. You can use it with the same caveats as anywhere else. But the simple case is just to serve up some RDF at the URI being dereferenced. BTW, conneg is very widely deployed in the Linked Data web and doesn't seem to have been a problem.
I agree that conneg seems to be back in favor recently. I suppose that is
because we in the Linked Data community are not relying on browsers as much as
the syntactic Web folks. Conneg remains a problem in browser handling.
I also agree that your proposal isn't dependent on conneg. However, consider
the original use cases for conneg: You could serve various representations
based upon the context of a request. That is, you could serve either metadata
or data (as well as format variations). In the context of this discussion, I
would argue that conneg is another way to get to metadata about a resource by
resolving the URL for the resource.
/me ducks for the inevitable mud slinging this list has become.
We can improve the quality of discussion on this list.
Oh, I hope so. Let's try to do that, please :D