W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Resources and URIs

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 10:55:46 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBBAD@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <uri-request@w3.org>, <uri@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org]
> Sent: 29 April, 2003 17:53
> To: uri@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Resources and URIs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 28 Apr 2003 at 14:54, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
>  > E.g. what does the following URI denote?
>  >
>  >   http://forum.nokia.com/product/terminal/N6310r100
>  >
>  > (at the moment, there are no representations, so GET returns 404)
> 
> Then, by definition of the HTTP specs, the URI denotes nothing, at
> least at the moment that somebody attempted unsuccessfully to
> dereference it. 

No. A 404 response can reflect a temporary condition that has nothing
to do with whether a representation is normally available. E.g. the
server may not at that moment have mounted a filesystem that it normally
has mounted, for whatever reason. So a 404 response does *not* reflect
anything about the denotation of the URI in question.

If the current specs actually say the above, then they are clearly wrong.
(but I don't think they say, or are intended to say the above).

> That there is some Semantic Web server, at a
> different URI, which makes a claim to the effect that the above URI
> actually denotes some particular product, is irrelevant, just as it
> would be irrelevant that Google lists some particular URI as
> representing the Web site of a church, when in fact they recently let
> their domain name expire and it now leads to a porn site.  

That is a different issue. If the information provided by a non-authoritative
3rd party conflicts with the "reality" of the actual denotation and
representations (if any) available from the authoritative Web server,
then that is simply a matter of disagreement between knowledge sources.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the official, authoritative
denotation of a given URI.

> The only
> thing one can definitively say about a HTTP URI is what it leads to
> upon dereferencing, which, of course, can be a constantly changing
> thing.

I disagree. The state of the resource denoted by the HTTP URI may
be constantly changing, such that one may never get the same representation
twice. But the denotation should be presumed to be reasonably static.

Patrick


--
Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com
 
Received on Friday, 2 May 2003 03:55:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:31 GMT