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

RE: N3 rule for proposed Resource-Description header

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:15:34 +0000
To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <184112FE564ADF4F8F9C3FA01AE50009FCF1F2AD62@G1W0486.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Hi Stuart,

> From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> [ . . . ]
> 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.

Hmm, it hadn't occurred to me that one might want a Resource-Description header on a 303 response.  But, yes, I can see that that could be useful also, and could be treated as indicating ancillary assertions just as for a 200 response.  I could see this as being particularly useful in support of suggested practice P4:
http://dbooth.org/2007/uri-decl/#p4
"A URI declaration page should provide links to suggested ancillary assertions about the resources whose URIs are declared by that page."
If the URI owner has already published a URI declaration and doesn't want to change it to add links to suggested ancillary assertions, then a Resource-Description or Link header could be a good way to do it.

>
> In this case the irrefutabilty comes from it being a 200...

Right, it's the 200 response that gives it irrefutability -- not the presence of a Link or Resource-Description header.

> 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.

I don't know what you mean.  That last sentence seems to be missing some words or something, as I cannot seem to parse it.  Can you explain?



David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 13:17:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 July 2008 07:55:27 GMT