- From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 07:31:10 -0700
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:15 AM, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote: > On Oct 15, 2012, at 5:20, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: > >> On 11/10/12 18:02, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: >> >>> I actually agree with you on the fact that RDF and Linked Data are >>> different - meaning there is a difference between the two, namely: >>> URIs in Linked Data are dereferencable URLs > > Sorry to respond to the middle of a thread - I'm traveling. > > Arnaud's position seems odd to me. Dereferencable URLs are always good IMO, but should Linked Data become somehow invalid if a URI doesn't dereference? Of course not. That suggests that dereferencable URLs are just a Good Thing, but not mandatory, just as they are in RDF. Of course! The dereferencablity of a URI can change either from network errors, or the simple passage of time. Just 'cause you can't dereference a URI today doesn't mean it work work just fine in a day or two. --Gavin > > Sorry to be philosophic, but I think our shared mental model bears on Andy's questions. > >> >> Can a GET on a BPR return 303? > > I certainly hope so. > > Regards, > Dave > >> Can BPR URIs have a fragment? (c.f. 4.1.2) >> >> The intro to section 4 says that BPRs come from linked data rules and the Linked Data page mentions fragment and 303. >> >> Or does the spec not care? (an example with a # would be good in that case) >> >> Andy >> >> PS which triggers the thought (unrelated): >> >> Should a BPR respond 301 if not accessed by the canonical URL? >> >
Received on Monday, 15 October 2012 14:31:41 UTC