Re: [GRAPH] graph deadlock?

On 12/22/2011 12:59 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2011, at 08:54, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> 
>> Le 20/12/2011 21:55, Steve Harris a écrit :
>>> [skip]
>>>
>>> I think most(?) people agree that a URI should denote/name/something
>>> a graph, or some other entity, but not both at the same time. The
>>> problem is that people don't follow this rule in RDF now*, don't
>>> follow it in quads as implemented now, and I don't think they will
>>> follow it in the future.
>>>
>>> So, does that break RDF, or does it break their applications?
>>>
>>> If it just breaks people's applications, then we can write what we
>>> would like to happen in the document, and people who do the Right
>>> Thing™ will be fine, and people who don't will suffer in some way.
>>>
>>> If on the other hand it breaks RDF, it's probably already too late,
>>> and we have a problem.
>>>
>>> - Steve
>>>
>>> * e.g. http://blog.iandavis.com/2010/11/04/is-303-really-necessary/
>>
>> I haven't read the whole post but where do you see a URI which is used to denote two different things at the same time? How do you know it denotes 2 things simultaneously?
> 
> Well, if I have a document like:
> 
> <http://example.com/foo> a <Thing> .
> 
> and then I dereference http://example.com/foo, and get a 200 and a document back, isn't http://example.com/foo both an instance and a document?

Ian's point was not to advocate that the same URI identifies both a
thing and a document. Read the added section ("Update Nov 5") where
'.../toucan' identifies an animal, and '.../toucan.rdf' identifies its
description in RDF/XML.

His position was more about the necessity of 303-redirect for URIs
denoting "non-documents". His suggestion was to respond with a "200 OK",
but using the "Content-Location" header to indicate the indirection.

Of course, this contradicts the TAG's position that "200 OK" can only be
used for so-called "information resources". But that does not implies
that URIs denote several things.

  pa


> Maybe I missed something though.
> 
> - Steve
>

Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 11:57:28 UTC