W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Call for proposals to amend the "httpRange-14 resolution"

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:52:53 -0500
To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Cc: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Tim Bannister <isoma@jellybaby.net>, SWIG Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1331225573.2875.7723.camel@dbooth-laptop>
But just to be clear . . .

Michel, are you saying that you interpret the intent of the httpRange-14
resolution differently than how Pat, Jonathan and I have described?  Or
are you saying that you *disagree* with it, for the reasons that you
explained?  I always assumed the latter.

David

On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 11:29 -0500, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> Many people share Michel's view, which is based on a literal reading
> of the resolution, not on what Pat, David, I, and many others discern
> to have been the *intent* of the resolution. If the intent had been
> expressed then retrieval *would* have logically consequential
> semantics along the lines of what I've laid out in
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/latest/, and the resolution would
> have been useful for inference (inferences that many people do all the
> time without any particular justification). There is no ambiguity in
> what the resolution *said*; the difficulty is that some people like
> Michel have with some justification refused to read between the lines,
> while others have considered the intent to be a no-brainer.
> 
> There is nothing I can say to argue with Michel, based on anything
> that is written down in a credible location. As Pat says, this is "an
> incredible example of a fumbled ball" and it may be too late to repair
> the damage.
> 
> Michel, you might want to look at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Mar/0010.html which
> essentially agrees with you.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Michel Dumontier
> <michel.dumontier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Indeed. I have always maintained that 303 is wholly unnecessary (and much
> > more complicated than it ever needed to be), simply *because* it confers no
> > explicit semantics - which is the realm of description languages like
> > RDF/OWL.  Want to make the distinction between any identity (e.g. a document
> > and it's subject)? Make the statement in the document that a retrieval
> > provides.
> >
> > Both:
> > http://semanticscience.org/resource/has-direct-part
> > http://semanticscience.org/resource/has-direct-part.rdf
> >
> > are described in their respective payload (which is the same as a matter of
> > convenience in my implementation)
> >
> > m.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:47 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 16:08 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >> > On Mar 7, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Tim Bannister <isoma@jellybaby.net>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> In my view, if a GET for a URI returns content then it is a web
> >> > >> document (or information resource, if you prefer). Using 204 and Link: just
> >> > >> fits in better with how I understand the web.
> >> > >
> >> > > Just to be clear, *which* web document or IR? That is, how do you feel
> >> > > about the Flickr and Jamendo cases, where the URI is used to refer to
> >> > > an IR described by the content retrieved using GET, but is not similar
> >> > > to the content retrieved using GET?
> >> >
> >> > That sounds like it is consistent with a 303 response but not to a
> >> > 200-x, according to what http-range-14 *ought* to have said. Which
> >> > was, of course, that a 200-x response means that the URI denotes *the
> >> > IR that emitted the response*, not just some IR or other. (What an
> >> > incredible example of a fumbled ball.)
> >>
> >> It's true that the language of the httpRange-14 resolution[1] is
> >> ambiguous in that regard.  But did anybody actually interpret it in any
> >> other way?  I always thought that in cases like Flickr and Jamendo they
> >> did not misinterpret the httpRange-14 resolution, they just ignored it
> >> or were unaware of it.  Certainly folks like Ian Davis are well aware of
> >> the httpRange-14 rule, but have suggested that the rule could be ignored
> >> or modified in the case where the response carries an RDF document:
> >> http://blog.iandavis.com/2010/11/04/is-303-really-necessary/
> >>
> >> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Booth, Ph.D.
> >> http://dbooth.org/
> >>
> >> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> >> reflect those of his employer.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michel Dumontier
> > Associate Professor of Bioinformatics, Carleton University
> > Visiting Associate Professor, Stanford University
> > Chair, W3C Semantic Web for Health Care and the Life Sciences Interest Group
> > http://dumontierlab.com
> >
> 
> 
> 

-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 16:53:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:48 GMT