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

Re: Are MGET descriptions workable/necessary?

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:20:49 +0200
Cc: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
To: "ext Phil Dawes" <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-Id: <1882CD30-1F74-11D8-9552-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>


On Tuesday, Nov 25, 2003, at 01:51 Europe/Helsinki, ext Phil Dawes 
wrote:

> 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.
>

No problem. Progress is always good. ;-)

Cheers,

Patrick



> Cheers,
>
> Phil
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2003 13:23:16 GMT

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