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
resources.

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)

L.

-- 
Leigh Dodds
Programme Manager, Talis Platform
Talis
leigh.dodds@talis.com
http://www.talis.com
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 13:01:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:30 UTC