W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2003

RE: URIQA Questions

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 10:12:36 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBBD7@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <drepchick@intellidimension.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Derrish Repchick [mailto:drepchick@intellidimension.com]
> Sent: 22 May, 2003 23:27
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: URIQA Questions
> Q1) Will proxy servers present problems w.r.t. the URI in the 
> HTTP request?
> GET http:://example.com/document.html ----> GET /document.html
> URI-Resolution-Mode: Description

Not if the implementation is done right. See the code for the
URIQA servlet for an example of how this is addressed.

> Q2) How are equivalent URLs dealt with?
> GET http:://example.com/document.html 
> URI-Resolution-Mode: Description
> GET http:://
> URI-Resolution-Mode: Description
> GET http:://example.com:80/document.html 
> URI-Resolution-Mode: Description
> GET http:://example.net/document.html 
> URI-Resolution-Mode: Description
> Should the server map these requests onto the same resource?

As far as the SW is concerned, the above four URIs might
denote distinct resources, and unless they are equated in
some manner (e.g. using owl:sameIndividualAs) they should
be treated as distinct.

It's important to stress that the above four resources are
considered to be the same simply because they have the same
set of representations and responses from the server are
identitical for all four URIs -- but the REST model does
not say that they are the same resource.

That said, it might be reasonable to at least explore
a means of normalizing URIs in some manner, if it is
sure that ambiguity will not arise.



Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 23 May 2003 03:16:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:45 UTC