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

200 OK with Content-Location might work

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:55:15 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD436F3.1030207@webr3.org>
To: Mike Kelly <mike@mykanjo.co.uk>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
CC: public-lod@w3.org
Mike Kelly wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-12#page-14

snipped and fuller version inserted:

    4.  If the response has a Content-Location header field, and that URI
        is not the same as the effective request URI, then the response
        asserts that its payload is a representation of the resource
        identified by the Content-Location URI.  However, such an
        assertion cannot be trusted unless it can be verified by other
        means (not defined by HTTP).

> If a client wants to make a statement  about the specific document
> then a response that includes a content-location is giving you the
> information necessary to do that correctly. It's complemented and
> further clarified in the entity body itself through something like
> isDescribedBy.

I stand corrected, think there's something in this, and it could maybe 
possibly provide the semantic indirection needed when Content-Location 
is there, and different to the effective request uri, and complimented 
by some statements (perhaps RDF in the body, or Link header, or html 
link element) to assert the same.

Covers a few use-cases, might have legs (once HTTP-bis is a standard?).

Nicely caught Mike!

Best,

Nathan
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 16:56:28 UTC

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