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

RE: Are MGET descriptions workable/necessary?

From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:51:53 +0000
Message-ID: <16322.39321.550896.826950@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Joshua Allen writes:
 > 
 > > > author to maintain a web service describing all his/her terms *at
 > the
 > > > url it was defined at*.
 > 
 > 
 > > of the resource denoted by that URI, you ask an HTTP server hosted at
 > > example.com (which is presumed to exist) and usually, you'd GET back a
 > > representation.
 > 
 > Am I missing something?  I thought the idea of MGET would easily support
 > something like:
 > 
 > #telnet rdf.mymetadatarepository.com 80
 > Connected to .....
 > MGET http://www.ibm.com
 > ... returns all metadata about ibm.com known to server
 > mymetadatarepository ...
 > 

Doh! - I've just reread http://sw.nokia.com/uriqa/URIQA.html and
you're right.
I was assuming it would work like GET - i.e.:

#telnet www.ibm.com 80
 > Connected to .....
 > MGET / HTTP/1.1
 > ... returns all metadata about http://www.ibm.com/


#telnet www.ibm.com 80
 > Connected to .....
 > MGET /terms/foobah HTTP/1.1
 > ... returns all metadata about http://www.ibm.com/foobah


So I was missing something. That would imply that you can ask other
rdf repositories about terms that aren't in their dns. 

Apologies Patrick - I did have the wrong end of the stick after all.

Cheers,

Phil
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2003 05:33:04 GMT

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