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

Re: ACTION-115: Note on proxy graph URI

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:01:16 +0100
Message-Id: <83447F9D-BCDA-48E9-A626-9F8C1C580526@garlik.com>
To: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 12 Oct 2009, at 17:45, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:

> Response to Kjetil / Andy re: proxies is below (I have made changes  
> to the
> editorial draft):
>
> On 10/11/09 3:59 PM, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com> wrote:
>> I don't like the term proxy because:
>>
>> A/ (minor) "proxies" in HTTP occur in a lot of places so it's a bit  
>> overloaded
>>
>> B/ Having two names for the same thing is just something that  
>> happens on the
>> web. Both names have the same status.
>>
>> It's the same graph, accessible through a different name.  Each  
>> name is as
>> valid as the other and one is not a second class name; "proxy", for  
>> me, sort
>> of implies it's not a first class name.
>
> Ok.  I was using the term proxy to tease out whether we were talking  
> about
> URI 'aliases' or service endpoints for the purpose of clarity in the
> protocol model.  It appears the use case we are talking about is  
> that of an
> alias.

I think that is maybe is an alias, but for what exactly?

There are cases where it's not something that can be retrieved by any  
other URI request  other than an explicit CONSTRUCT with no  
variables, which is cheating, you can build any RDF graph that way.

I think Andy may have made the point about it being an alternative  
syntax for a CONSTRUCT/INSERT etc. request, but I'm not sure and I  
don't want to put words in his mouth.

> 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.

I would expect so.

> "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.
>
> I have changed the editorial text and the image to use URI alias  
> rather than
> URI proxy.  Note I've also updated the editorial text with some of  
> your
> suggestions, but I didn't add text about at risk since I think the  
> existence
> of editorial text that highlights the concerns and the fact that it  
> is a
> FPWD adequately addresses this.

I'm not a huge fan of the term "alias" here  it's technically true, I  
suspect, but probably misleading.

- Steve
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 10:01:45 GMT

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