W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [HTTP-range-14] Re Hyperthing: Semantic Web URI Validator (303, 301, 302, 307 and hash URIs)

From: Yang Squared <yang.square@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:55:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CABi4B8CtnAfWmb+mSJvx1FENWSV122=sX4dFUUCPgdUhe5QE0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Schaffert <sebastian.schaffert@salzburgresearch.at>, kidehen@openlinksw.com
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Hi Sebastian,

I think I gave you wrong information in my previous email.

I just checked the 300 status code again, it says that

The requested resource corresponds to any one of a set of representations.

The implicit meaning of this status code is that the request resource is an
information resource, therefore it has representation. Therefore, according
to the current definition of this status code, we should not use 300 to
publish the non-information resources, they do not have a web
representation.

I am sorry about this,
Yang

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Yang Squared <yang.square@gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks Kingsley,  your suggestions help to make a better paper.
>
> Thanks Sebastain, yes, I agree with you that I think it 300 can be use
> with Linked Data. I did not consider the 300 case, as I think it is not
> frequently used and it introduce complicated scenarios.
>
> If 300 redirects a document URI to multiple representations, then 300 code
> will function similar to 301, 302, 307, essentially, it means the request
> URI is alias with redirected URI, therefore. The request URI is the same as
> the URI user or agent choose to follow.
>
> If 300 redirects a object URI to multiple representations, then 300 code
> will function similar to 303 and hash, where the request URI is described
> the the URI where user or agent choose to follow
>
> We can only distinguish them when we obtain the document to see if it is a
> RDF and contains the request URI, if so the original request URI is object
> URI, otherwise, it is a document URI.
>
> This is what I can think of now.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Sebastian Schaffert <
> sebastian.schaffert@salzburgresearch.at> wrote:
>
>> Dear Yang,
>>
>> just as a small contribution to the discussion:
>>
>> as posted some months ago on this mailing list [1], we are developing the
>> "Linked Media Framework" [2], aiming to provide unified access to content
>> and metadata as well as retrieval and updates.
>>
>> The LMF is "backwards compatible" with the Linked Data principles, but we
>> had to do a small change to allow for "symmetric" updating of resources: we
>> are using "300 Multiple Choices" as status code for the HTTP redirect.  The
>> reason is that 300 was the only sensible choice that would allow us to
>> treat a PUT request (for updating) analogously to a GET request, as all
>> other redirect codes either have the wrong semantics (301, 302, 304, 307)
>> or rewrite a PUT/POST request to a GET (301-303). According to my
>> understanding of the description of the 300 status code, the semantics are
>> appropriate for use with Linked Data [3]:
>>
>> "300 Multiple Choices
>>
>> The requested resource corresponds to any one of a set of
>> representations, each with its own specific location, and agent- driven
>> negotiation information (section 12) is being provided so that the user (or
>> user agent) can select a preferred representation and redirect its request
>> to that location.
>>
>> Unless it was a HEAD request, the response SHOULD include an entity
>> containing a list of resource characteristics and location(s) from which
>> the user or user agent can choose the one most appropriate. The entity
>> format is specified by the media type given in the Content- Type header
>> field. Depending upon the format and the capabilities of the user agent,
>> selection of the most appropriate choice MAY be performed automatically.
>> However, this specification does not define any standard for such automatic
>> selection.
>>
>> If the server has a preferred choice of representation, it SHOULD include
>> the specific URI for that representation in the Location field; user agents
>> MAY use the Location field value for automatic redirection. This response
>> is cacheable unless indicated otherwise."
>>
>>
>> My question to you is whether there is a reason you do not take into
>> account 300 redirects at all. Is there a specific reason for this?
>>
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2011May/0019.html
>> [2] http://code.google.com/p/kiwi/
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>> Am 17.10.2011 um 12:41 schrieb Yang Squared:
>>
>> > Following the HTTP-range-14 discussion, we developed a Semantic Web
>> URIs Validator named Hyperthing which helps to publish the Linked Data. We
>> particularly investigated what happens when we temporary and permnent
>> redirect (e.g. 301 and 302 redirections) of a Semantic Web URI (303 and
>> hash URI).
>> >
>> > http://www.hyperthing.org/
>> >
>> > Hyperthing mainly functions for three purposes:
>> > 1) It determines if the requested URI identifies a Real World Object or
>> a Web document;
>> > 2) It checks whether the URIs publishing method follows the W3C hash
>> URIs and 303 URI practice;
>> > 3) It can be used to check the validity of the chains of the
>> redirection between the Real World Object URIs and Document URIs to prevent
>> the data publisher mistakenly redirecting between these two kinds. (e.g. it
>> checks against redirection which include 301, 302 and 307)
>> >
>> > For more information please read
>> >
>> >  Dereferencing Cool URI for the Semantic Web: What is 200 OK on the
>> Semantic Web?
>> >
>> > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4138729/paper/dereference_iswc2011.pdf
>> >
>> > Any suggestion is welcome.
>>
>> Sebastian
>> --
>> | Dr. Sebastian Schaffert
>> sebastian.schaffert@salzburgresearch.at
>> | Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft
>> http://www.salzburgresearch.at
>> | Head of Knowledge and Media Technologies Group          +43 662 2288
>> 423
>> | Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II
>> | A-5020 Salzburg
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Web and Internet Science
>
> Room 3027 EEE Building
>
> Electronics and Computer Science
>
> University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ
>
>
> Tel: +44(0)23 8059 8346
>
> twitter: @yang_squared <http://twitter.com/#!/yang_squared>
>
>


-- 

-----------------------------------

Web and Internet Science

Room 3027 EEE Building

Electronics and Computer Science

University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ


Tel: +44(0)23 8059 8346

twitter: @yang_squared <http://twitter.com/#!/yang_squared>
Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 09:56:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:37 UTC