W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)

From: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 13:00:58 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=u2_t5DPJeZ4mgZ4kDJL9iPb3Nym-ruDGCCq-D@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Fuller <robert.fuller@deri.org>
Cc: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Robert,

Thanks for the response, good to hear from an implementor.

On 5 November 2010 10:41, Robert Fuller <robert.fuller@deri.org> wrote:
> ...
> However... with regard to publishing ontologies, we could expect
> additional overhead if same content is delivered on retrieving different
> Resources for example http://example.com/schema/latitude and
> http://example.com/schema/longitude . In such a case ETag could be used
> to suggest the contents are identical, but not sure that is a practical
> solution. I expect that without 303 it will be more difficult in
> particular to publish and process ontologies.

This is useful to know thanks. I don't think the ETag approach works
as it's intended to version a specific resource, not be carried across

One way to avoid the overhead is to strongly recommend # URIs for
vocabularies. This seems to be increasingly the norm. It also makes
them easier to work with (you often want the whole document)


Leigh Dodds
Programme Manager, Talis Platform
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 13:01:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:10 UTC