W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > March 2008

Re: checking "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" comments... OPEN QUESTION GenDocUri

From: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:51:45 +0100
Message-ID: <47D94D91.2070203@dfki.de>
To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Susie M Stephens <STEPHENS_SUSIE_M@LILLY.COM>, "public-sweo-ig@w3.org" <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, "tag@w3.org" <tag@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>

Stuart, all,

I will attend. I found the telco info on the /group page.
Richard Cyganiak also told me he will attend.

Beforehand....

I see a strong need to discuss the issue of having a "generic document 
URI",
which is currently not covered in the "cool uris ftsw" document.
 From our point of view, it makes things more complicated and it is 
possible to
implement http-range-14 correct and valid without it, as did already 
some services.

TimBl and Cygri started a discussion about it on #SWIG
where TimBl requires us to change the document considerably[1],

21:11:51 <http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2008-02-14.html#T21-11-51> 
<timbl> cygri, I know -- I would like the document to describe tyhe 
solution where there is a URI for the generic document


Cygri summed it up, as we have *possibly contradicting* views on it,
we would appreciate a comment before the telco,
especially *facts* why to use your suggestion [1] and not our current one,
here is a summary [2]:

22:06:28 <http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2008-02-14.html#T22-06-28> 
<cygri> timbl, i'm not sure i understand why the difference matters so 
much, but let's ignore that for a minute

22:06:57 <http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2008-02-14.html#T22-06-57> 
<cygri> let me see if i understand the main thing that you want to have 
changed in the doc

22:07:27 <http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2008-02-14.html#T22-07-27> 
<cygri> timbl: currently, we say: "do content negotiation at the thing 
uri and 303 either to the rdf variant or the html variant"

22:08:28 <http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2008-02-14.html#T22-08-28> 
<cygri> you want us to say: "303-redirect from the thing uri to a 
generic document uri; conneg at the generic document uri, and serve the 
appropriate variant directly from there"

22:08:34 <http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2008-02-14.html#T22-08-34> 
<cygri> right, timbl?


Richard's and my view is:
"do content negotiation at the thing uri and 303 either to the rdf 
variant or the html variant"
BECAUSE it is simpler to explain and works as well as the proposed 
GenDocUri way.


kind regards
Leo
[1] http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2008-02-14.html#T21-11-51
[2] http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2008-02-14.html#T22-06-28

It was Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) who said at the right time 
12.03.2008 17:50 the following words:
> Leo, Richard,
>
> We really have to improve the bandwidth of this dialog - which is getting over loaded by context retoration at each message exchange.
>
> Can either or both of you be available to attend a TAG teclon on 20th March say 1:15pm Boston time (bearing in mind that the US has sprung forward and not all of Europe has).
>
> TimBL, DanC:
> Can you both confirm your availability to discuss this on 20th March.
>
> [Amy: if necessary can you confirm on behalf of Tim - thx]
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stuart
> --
> Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
> Registered No: 690597 England
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Leo Sauermann [mailto:leo.sauermann@dfki.de]
>> Sent: 12 March 2008 09:45
>> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
>> Cc: Richard Cyganiak; Susie M Stephens;
>> public-sweo-ig@w3.org; Dan Connolly; Danny Ayers; Norman
>> Walsh; tag@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: checking "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
>> comments... would like more time
>>
>> It was Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) who said at the right time
>> 15.02.2008 12:11 the following words:
>>     
>>> Hello Leo, Richard,
>>>
>>> Following our telcon meeting yesterday TimBL and DanC did
>>>       
>> more work to
>>     
>>> clarify their rendering of the diagram originally discussed
>>>       
>> around [1,2].
>>     
>>> They have produced the following which I hope will
>>>       
>> 'unblock' whatever
>>     
>>> is causing us a problem wrt to item #2 in the threaded
>>>       
>> discussion below.
>>     
>>> _    http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/tag/HTTP303.png_
>>> <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/tag/HTTP303.png>
>>>     _http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/tag/HTTP303.graffle_
>>>
>>> Note: i don't thing this diagram visually distinguishes
>>>       
>> between URIs
>>     
>>> and resources, a distinction which I think is useful and
>>>       
>> was apparent
>>     
>>> in the whiteboard diagram/photo at [2].
>>>
>>> Would you find it useful to come to a TAG telcon to talk
>>>       
>> through a bit
>>     
>>> how we (well... you)  finalise this document? I have regrets from
>>> TimBL to TAG telcons through to and including 13th March, so we'd
>>> either have to make progress in his absense or wait until he was
>>> available. DanC is on the hook to scribe our meeting on
>>>       
>> 21st Feb... so
>>     
>>> that would be a possibility - or we will all be meeting F2F in
>>> Vancouver 26-28th Feb and we could try to have you join us
>>>       
>> by phone if
>>     
>>> that would work.
>>>       
>> Richard and I have looked at the diagram and discussed about
>> it, the approach as depicted on above image [3] is confusing
>> us, is seems to be different from the photo at [2], and also
>> to what is written in http-range-14.
>>
>> In the *worst* way, I could intentionally mis-interpret [3] as the
>> following:
>> == worst case===
>> * URIthing identifying the thing
>> * URIgen identifying a forwarder uri
>> * URIrdf identifying a rdf document
>> * URIhtml identifying a html document
>>
>> On a GET to URIthing
>> it makes a  303 redirect to URIgen,
>> which will do another 303 (based on conneg) to either, URIrdf
>> or URIhtml.
>> == /worst case ==
>>
>> 3 http roundtrips - this is not what you had in mind!?
>>
>> I would guess that other readers may also mis-interpret the
>> provided graphic [3] and therefore would NOT use it as is in
>> the document.
>>
>> My understanding of the decision was:
>> == we assumed ==
>> Assuming we start with graphic [4], the content-negotiation
>> and 303 redirect is handled:
>> On a GET to URIthing
>> make a 303 redirect from URIthing to URIrdf or URIhtml based
>> on conneg, defaulting to "URIhtml" for browsers that do not
>> pass RDF as "accept"
>> == /we assumed==
>>
>> YES?
>>
>> Out of sheer curiosity, I wonder if using a method indicated
>> on [5] may also work for semantic-web redirects... but we
>> will stick to 303 in the document, we only wanted to explain
>> the http-range-14 decision.
>>
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/tag/HTTP303.png
>> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/img20071212/303.png
>> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/chips/#cp5.2
>>
>>
>> best
>> Leo
>>     
>>> In terms of closing our outstanding comments - seeing finalised
>>> diagrams alongside the accompanying narrative is important
>>>       
>> to us. We
>>     
>>> would like to review the document in as near final form as possible.
>>> FWIW that also means resolving (or removing) the dangling todo's
>>> particularly if they are going to add text to the document.
>>>
>>> Lastly, we ran out of time on our call before I could
>>>       
>> establish where
>>     
>>> the rest of the TAG were satisfied by the changes that you
>>>       
>> had made on
>>     
>>> section 3.1
>>>
>>> I hope that all makes sense. Basically,
>>> - we'd be happy to invite you to a segment of one of our
>>>       
>> meetings in
>>     
>>> order to get he interaction bandwidth up - please let me
>>>       
>> know if you
>>     
>>> would like to do that;
>>> - we'd like to review the document in as near final form (in
>>> particular in thr form in which if we say 'good-to-go' from our POV
>>> then it is published exactly as is at that point - modulo
>>> boilerplate/status changes). If that is the state that you believe
>>> that you are already in, please let us know.
>>>
>>> BR
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>> --
>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0109.html
>>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Sep/0061
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road,
>>>       
>> Bracknell, Berks
>>     
>>> RG12 1HN
>>> Registered No: 690597 England
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------
>>     
>>>    
>


-- 
____________________________________________________
DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 

Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer 
Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122
P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de

Geschaeftsfuehrung:
Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
____________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 16:07:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 March 2008 16:07:24 GMT