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

Re: 200 OK with Content-Location might work

From: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:11:15 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinqkrqYc-XoF-_0BWDWz_4qt6S5j7FHfxSt4cZs@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: Mike Kelly <mike@mykanjo.co.uk>, public-lod@w3.org
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> 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!

+1 This is precisely what we need.

Ian
Received on Saturday, 6 November 2010 12:11:50 UTC

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