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

Re: MGET and machine processing

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:14:33 +0200
Cc: "ext Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
To: "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Message-Id: <C396AAF6-1E77-11D8-8354-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>


On Sunday, Nov 23, 2003, at 14:19 Europe/Helsinki, ext Jos De_Roo wrote:

>
> PatrickS:
> [...]
>>>> A SW agent should *not* have to examine the content returned
>>>> to determine if it is what it asked for. Either the server
>>>> understood what it meant (and the protocol is sufficiently
>>>> precise to achieve that) and returned what the agent asked
>>>> for, or it returns an error.
>>>
>>> Sure, it's not ideal, and if HTTP had mandatory extensions we 
>>> wouldn't
>>> have this problem.  But it's by no means a big deal in this specific
>>> case since you can just check if the media type that's returned is 
>>> the
>>> media type you asked for.  Suck it up! 8-)
>>
>>
>> Er. Well, this is precisely what I meant earlier by "sloppy hacks".
>> The amount of potential (or rather, likely) overhead to work around
>> ambiguous behavior on the part of servers will be too costly in the
>> long run. It's OK for a single system, but not for a global standard.
>>
>> Sorry, that just doesn't satisfy my expectations for a well engineered
>> SW architecture, particularly given the far greater need for precision
>> and reliability that the SW has over the Web in general.
>
> We

Who is "we"? Agfa? Some other group?

> assume that Web and SW are unified/reaching their potential
> when we simply follow http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/Reach
> So log:semantics can easily result in an actual HTTP GET of
> for instance
>   eg:r1 eg:p1 eg:r2.
>   eg:r2 eg:p2 eg:r3.
>   eg:r3 eg:p3 eg:r1.
> which is just an example of 3 statements about 3 resources
> but which is not particularly connected to (and so MGET-able
> from) one of those 3 resources.

I'm sorry, Jos, but this seems to completely miss the issue.

I'm fully aware that one can GET an entire RDF document. But while
a particular document might constitute a concise bounded description
of a particular resource, it need not (and usually won't) so to
that log:semantics is completely useless.

I'm really unsure what point you were trying to make here. If
you mean that log:semantics and document-based interchange
provide the SW, then I strongly disagree.

They are useful components of knowledge interchange, but provide
far, far too coarse a granularity for efficient resource-centric
knowledge discovery.

Patrick



>
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>
>
Received on Monday, 24 November 2003 11:57:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:03 GMT