W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Named Graphs and Content Negotiation

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 16:31:49 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUEvsgY6T9C0QXriBseyRoVGL18e37n6ksn_bRSZ2ka12A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org
Great, fixed in the "future" specification document.

http://www.openannotation.org/spec/extension/future.html

Rob

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I believe it does.
>
> I can think of at least two cases which are not http URIs, but whose
> resolution in practice may produce an http URI for an http proxy
> service with the original URI as an argument, and whose dereferencing
> is then the dereferencing of the original.  Those two are doi and
> lsid.  (Whether a request for Named Graph serialization could be
> passed all the way to the proxy might be another question, but it
> seems that should be possible in general.)
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good catch.
>>
>> I propose the following amendment:
>>
>> This form MUST ONLY be returned when retrieving an Annotation if the
>> client explicitly requests a Named Graph serialization, for example
>> through the use of HTTP Content Negotiation.  This restriction ...
>>
>> Does that remove the HTTP protocol restriction sufficiently?
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> OK, I concede that  [1] seems to slightly discourage the use of Named
>>> Graphs, though conceding their utility. Hence, my concern may not be
>>> of great impact.  But I am slightly concerned by the tex in the OAX
>>> spect:
>>>
>>> "This form MUST ONLY be returned when dereferencing an Annotation's
>>> URI if the client explicitly requests a Named Graph serialization via
>>> Content Negotiation. This restriction is to ensure interoperability
>>> with clients that can not parse the Named Graph serialization, and
>>> hence would be unable to parse the Annotation graph at all."
>>>
>>> Content Negotiation is defined by the http protocol, and the first
>>> sentence seems to assume that Named Graphs must have http URIs. (Maybe
>>> I'm wrong.  Maybe other dereferencable URI schemes can support http
>>> Content Negotiation???).   OA has plenty of advice or requirements
>>> about resources with http URIs, but this seems to be the only facility
>>> in OA that can't be used except with http URIs.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.openannotation.org/spec/extension/#NamedGraph
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Robert A. Morris
>>>
>>> Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science
>>> UMASS-Boston
>>> 100 Morrissey Blvd
>>> Boston, MA 02125-3390
>>>
>>> IT Staff
>>> Filtered Push Project
>>> Harvard University Herbaria
>>> Harvard University
>>>
>>> email: morris.bob@gmail.com
>>> web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
>>> web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
>>> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
>>> ===
>>> The content of this communication is made entirely on my
>>> own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
>>> official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or
>>> Harvard University.
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert A. Morris
>
> Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science
> UMASS-Boston
> 100 Morrissey Blvd
> Boston, MA 02125-3390
>
> IT Staff
> Filtered Push Project
> Harvard University Herbaria
> Harvard University
>
> email: morris.bob@gmail.com
> web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
> web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
> ===
> The content of this communication is made entirely on my
> own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
> official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or
> Harvard University.
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 22:32:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 May 2012 22:32:40 GMT