Re: SWBPD WG Resolution Regarding httpRange-14

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:16 GMT

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
...
>
> Could they for example please explain, in their
> ontology, semantics of an HTTP 200 response?

I'm not a member of the SWBPWG but couldn't resist:

see: http://www.openhealth.org/xmtp/HTTP

Briefly,

In N-Triples form:

@prefix http = <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616#> .
<http://example.org/uri> http:GET <mid:xxx-request> .
<mid:xxx-request> rdf:type http:Request .
<http://example.org/uri> http:GET <mid:xxx-response> .
<mid:xxx-response> rdf:type http:Response .

When the request and response messages are not assigned URIs, they are 
treated as anonymous nodes.

An RDF/XML syntax representation:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:http="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616#"
     xmlns="http://www.openhealth.org/xmtp#">
 <http:GET>
     <http:Request rdf:parseType="Resource">
      <Request-URI rdf:resource="http://example.org/uri" />
      <Host rdf:resource="http://example.org/uri" />
      <Accept>*/*</Accept>
     </http:Request>
     <http:Response rdf:parseType="Resource">
      <http:Status>200</http:Status>
      <Content-Type>text/plain</Content-Type>
      <Body>This is an example document entity</Body>
     </http:Response>
 </http:GET>
</rdf:RDF>

In any case the semantics of the HTTP 200 response is about a 
representation not the resource, no?

It seems the most one can say is that the rdfs:domain of the http:GET 
property is non-hashed URIrefs (i.e. URIs). Is it being proposed that 
anything in this rdfs:domain ought not be an RDF Property?

Staying purely at the OWL level, what does this gain us?

Jonathan