W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Using "Punning" to Answer httpRange-14

From: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 12:41:07 +0200
To: Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
Cc: public-rww@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120705104106.GA1985@netestate.de>

hi all,

I don't think the httprange14 situation is so bad that we have to consider
revolutionary proposals but just in case it gets so bad, I have an idea based
on Jenis idea (http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/170) that I like:

-Remove any restriction on what a URL with 200 statuscode denotes per se

-Move httprange14 into RDF semantics: If a URL with 200 statuscode is used in
 a triple, it denotes what it accesses. I guess this does not have to be part
 of the formalism.
 
-Extend the RDF abstract syntax and semantics with a way to express if the
 content or the sense of a URL is meant in a triple. Old style triples
 stay valid but will be interpreted with the httprange14-rule above. This would
 also be an opportunity to introduce n-tuples / n-ary relations ;-)

Regards,

Michael Brunnbauer

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 01:22:58PM +0200, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
> 
> Hello Michiel,
> 
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:20:04PM +0200, Michiel de Jong wrote:
> > i think Jeni's proposal is valid, and 303s and hash uri rule are not.
> 
> I think a cleaner way would have been to introduce a content and a sense
> function for URLs and a way so specify which one should be applied in a
> statement to get the property argument. This way we would not have several
> properties where we really mean *one* property. But to specify which function 
> should be applied requires additional elements which do not fit into the
> RDF abstract syntax.
> 
> > > In the case of properties like dcterms:subject, we need four different
> > > properties.
> > 
> > that was also my second thought.
> [...]
> > no. if a vocabulary has not already thought about which one of the 4
> > options a certain property means, then it was broken.
> 
> You just conceded that with dcterms:subject there are 4 valid options 
> and not a single one. So you think the dcterms vocabulary is "broken" because
> it does not include the three variants of dcterms:subject that somehow relate
> to the content of a URL ? Would not the URL have to be a typed literal in
> this case ?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Michael Brunnbauer
> 
> -- 
> ++  Michael Brunnbauer
> ++  netEstate GmbH
> ++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
> ++  81379 München
> ++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
> ++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 
> ++  E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
> ++  http://www.netestate.de/
> ++
> ++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
> ++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
> ++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
> ++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel

-- 
++  Michael Brunnbauer
++  netEstate GmbH
++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++  81379 München
++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 
++  E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
++  http://www.netestate.de/
++
++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 10:41:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 July 2012 10:41:36 GMT