W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: ACTION-115: Note on proxy graph URI

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:34:29 +0200
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-id: <200910130934.29900.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
On Monday 12. October 2009 18:45:33 Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> Ok.  I was using the term proxy to tease out whether we were talking
> about URI 'aliases' or service endpoints 

Tihihi! I'd say that was a successful tease :-)

> In which case, I believe this settles the issue of whether this induces
> good 'HTTP behavior', since presumably you can use all the verbs
> (PUT/POST/GET/DELETE) uniformly on these alias URIs as though you were
> using the IRI of the graph directly. In addition, conditional GETs would
> work as expected.

Indeed. My argument was that one cannot infer the "original" graph URI from 
the "proxy" URI due to the opacity axiom, which still holds true, I 
believe, but if we treat them as equivalent aliases, this becomes 
irrelevant.

> "Kjetil Kjernsmo" wrote
>
> > So, it means it is a URI Alias. While that carries some negative
> > connotation, perhaps we should just use that term "endpoint URI alias", 
> > or something...?
>
> Well (WRT the negative connotation of 'alias') - although Web arch
> generally frowns on multiple URIs to identify the same resource it
> doesn't forbid it, and it appears this use case is an exemplar of why
> URI aliases are sometimes necessary.

Yup.

Cheers,

Kjetil
-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
kjetil@kjernsmo.net
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 07:35:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT