W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > March 2007

Re: HTTP Vocabulary in RDF: extensibilty

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:02:57 +0000
Message-ID: <46054BA4.5090000@gmx.de>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org




Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb:
> Hi Julian,
> 
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm a bit confused what the extensibility model is.
>>
>> For instance: why does the spec include definitions for headers 
>> defined in RFC2518, but not for status codes (such as 207)?
> 
> The response codes are defined by the ResponseCode class:
>  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-HTTP-in-RDF-20070323/#responseCode>
>  - <http://www.w3.org/2006/http#ResponseCode>
> 
> As shown in example 2.6, it is easy to record response codes (such as 
> "207") that are not defined by the HTTP Vocabulary in RDF (taken from 
> RFC 2616). Additionally, it is also possible to extend the core schema 
> (using a separate namespace) by subclassing the NewResponseCode class:
>  - <http://www.w3.org/2006/http#NewResponseCode>
> 
> A similar approach has been taken for the headers, one can use the set 
> of predefined headers, record literal values, or use subclassing.
> 
> Hope this helps, thanks for your comments.

Understood, but why are RFC2518 headers predefined, while RFC2518 status 
codes are not? So this is a consistency question. (Note that the is an 
IANA HTTP status code registry).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 24 March 2007 16:31:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:28 GMT