W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Making MGET more GET-friendly?

From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@asemantics.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:18:45 +0100
Message-Id: <EE563E50-7273-11D8-B93F-000A95CDA38A@asemantics.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
To: David Powell <djpowell@djpowell.net>


On Mar 10, 2004, at 9:52 AM, David Powell wrote:

>>> How about if it was MANDATORY for responses to MGET to have a
>
>> s/MGET/GET/ perhaps ?
>
> No, I meant MGET here. I was proposing that you could continue to get

Ok - so you still need some code in the agents.

> the resource using GET http://www.example.com/ex , and that you could
> get the resources metadata using MGET http://www.example.com/ex , but
> that the MGET would also return a Content-Location header pointing to
> http://www.example.com/ex.rdf or
> http://sw.example.com/metadata.cgi?url=http:%2f%2fwww.example.com%2fex
> which could then be used by GET requests for agents that didn't
> support MGET. This would help MGET data to still be part of the wider
> web.
....
> This still assumes a 1:1 relationship between data and metadata, but
> it makes getting metadata, and getting remain separate operations
> which could have independent access controls.

If you assume that - and given the above 1:1; would it not be simpler 
to simply
postulate an extra header:

	Characteristics-Location: http://www.example.com/ex.rdf

in the reply of any GET ? In particular that of the GET of 
http://www.example.com/ex.
And making sure you -also- get it when a cheaper HEAD is done ? Or does 
that
not accomplish all you want ?

Dw
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 04:18:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:20:06 UTC