- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:22:58 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Hi, On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > On 3/26/12 2:09 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote: >> >> Hi Kingsley, >> >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> Leigh, >>> >>> Everything we've built in the Linked Data realm leverages the findings of >>> HttpRange-14 re. Name/Address (Reference/Access) disambiguation. Our >>> Linked >>> Data clients adhere to these findings. Our Linked Data servers do the >>> same. >> >> By "we" I assume you mean OpenLink. Here's where I asked the original >> question [1]. Handily Ian Davis published an example resource that >> returns a 200 OK when you de-reference it [2]. > > Support was done (basically reusing our old internal redirection code) > whenever that post was made by Ian. > >> >> I just tested that in URI Burner [3] and it gave me broadly what I'd >> expect, i.e. the resources mentioned in the resulting RDF. I didn't >> see any visible breakage. Am I seeing fall-back behaviour? > > > As per comment above its implemented. We have our own heuristic for handling > self-describing resources. My concern is that what we've done isn't the norm > i.e., I don't see others working that way, instinctively. You have to be > over the Linked Data comprehension hump to be in a position emulate what > we've done. OK, I thought you might have done, so thanks for the confirmation. But this further demonstrates that we don't necessarily need redirects. >> .... >> Are people really testing status codes and changing subsequent >> processing behaviour because of that? It looks like there's little or >> no breakage in Sindice for example [3]. >> >> Based on Tim's comments he has been doing that, are other people doing >> the same? And if you have to ask if we're not, then who is this ruling >> benefiting? > > We do the same, but we also go beyond (i.e., what you call a fall-back). Would you care to elaborate on that? i.e: what inferences are you deriving from the protocol interaction? I can see that for a .txt document you are inferring that its a foaf:Document [1]. I'm still also interested to hear from others. [1]. http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/www.gutenberg.org/files/76/76.txt Cheers, L.
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 19:23:30 UTC