W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > April 2008

RE: N3 rule for proposed Resource-Description header

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:02:52 +0000
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9674EA156DA93A4F855379AABDA4A5C611CE55008A@G5W0277.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Hello David,

Just responding quickly on one small point that jumped out at me where we may have crossed wires:

> > It seems to me that is an arbitrary choice. I see little
> > difference in the weight/significance that one would apply to
> > formula arising in 2 or 5 above. After all arranging for the
> > corresponding responses from URI "u" requires similar levels
> > of endoresement of the referennce by the publisher of <u> - I
> > don't see why one is deemed more or less a declaration than
> the other.
> Yes, but the critical difference is that in case 2 no other
> objective information is architecturally available to a SWeb
> app about the denoted resource, and thus it is harmless to
> view the URI-owner-endorsed assertions as core assertions --
> and in fact, beneficial.  In contrast, in case 5, a SWeb app
> at least knows irrefutably that the denoted resource is an
> awww:InformationResource -- regardless of what else might
> also be true about it -- and thus someone may want to make
> statements about it as such without being forced to agree
> with any other assertions that the URI owner wanted to make
> about it, which after all could be something disagreeable such as:
>       <u> :hasRating :excellent .

I see Link or Resource-Description as equally applicable on a 303 response. I see your ruleset entails a hasDirectGetReply (ie. a 200). Actually, I would see such header based references (which indeed the Location: based reference is as well) as all having equivalent standing of "core"ness  or otherwise - they involve the same amount of forethought/deliberation to deploy. Would also work nicely with a HEAD request on an IR.

In this case the irrefutabilty comes from it being a 200... whereas, the redirection/linked references are orthogonal to that (though I don't know what a Location: present in a 200 would mean... hmmm...). That Link or Resource-Description is present in the response to not make for an irrefutable claim that the resource is an IR.

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 19:07:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:06 UTC