Re: Status codes / IR vs. NIR -- 303 vs. 200

On 11/12/10 11:51 AM, Lars Heuer wrote:
>> Methinks RDFa is machine readable. The machine simply needs to
>> >  understand RDFa. Thus, if the user agent is committed to RDFa, it should
>> >  be able to interpret RDFa content; giving the content an option to
>> >  clarify matters re. whether an IRI is Name or Address.
> Of course RDFa is machine readable. My example was HTML*without*
> RDFa.
>
Lars,

I ended my last post with an append "#this" solution. In your case, you 
want to use a slash terminated HTTP URI base Name. Thus, this comes back 
to what a mentioned earlier re. the 200 OK and Content-Location: header 
solution.

You've opted to describe an entity from the Amazon data space, you've 
committed to a data model (lets say an EAV graph with HTTP URIs for 
Entity Names), you've committed to base logic i.e. FOL (so your EAV 
graph has SPO triples). Thus, you should be able to work with slash 
terminated HTTP Names unambiguously if you commit to the 
semantic-fidelity of the content delivered to you via HTTP. Basically, 
the data will clearly Identity Subject distinct from Descriptor 
Document. And if not, then you or your Linked Data aware user agent 
(based on your commitment to semantic-fidelity) can add the missing 
triples en route to Name | Address disambiguation.

It's a Beauty & Beholder issue, ultimately :-)

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen