W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > July 2010

work in progress on HTTP exchanges

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:29:59 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTilyncVF2MPocueHrUPJXnRmdGOdcesoiYQx_hXP@mail.gmail.com>
To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Continuing the line of thought I started just before the TAG F2F
(http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/06/http-semantics.pdf) I've
transcribed aspects of those diagrams into OWL for you all... this is
work in progress, and I'll be continuing with it next week. This is
just available for a peek if you're interested:

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/webarch

Instead of anything resembling log:uri, I have a relation that relates
an HTTP exchange to the resource that it's about (the 'request
target'). This way we can factor out any theory of who thinks what
about the URI, or even whether the URI alone determines what the
exchange is about.

The most interesting piece, I think, is where it says that if an
exchange is about a resource R, and the request is a GET, and the
response is a 200, then the webarch-representation carried by the
response is 'of' R. I have yet to deal with fragment ids or redirects,
just laying the groundwork.

I've used 'webarch-representation' instead of 'representation' because
I agree with Pat, and 'webarch-representable' instead of 'information
resource' because of all the confusion around the latter term. (For a
while I was calling it GET-200-OK-resource, but that's too specific to
HTTP.) Of course I'll be changing all of my terminology for the next
iteration!

I'm using # URIs in deference to Tim and Dan, but I still get confused
by the role-noun pattern so I'm using the has- convention common in
the OWL community.

Jonathan
Received on Friday, 16 July 2010 21:30:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 July 2010 21:30:32 GMT