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

Re: RULE vs MGET

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:36:21 +0200
Message-Id: <C5816E0D-727E-11D8-964D-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
To: "ext Phil Dawes" <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>


On Mar 10, 2004, at 12:11, ext Phil Dawes wrote:

>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> What are the advantages of MGET over the RULE technique (e.g. add
> '.meta' onto the end of the URI) for getting metadata about the
> resource. I don't think I've heard any arguments to persuade me that
> this isn't a workable solution. (other than it's a bit ugly).

There are several arguements against that approach:

(1) it violates the rights of web authorities to control their own URI 
space
(2) it violates the principle of URI opacity
(3) it violates the freedom of URI schemes to define their own syntax
(4) it may not be possible to define any rule that will work for 
arbitrary URIs
(5) it is less convenient for implementors who don't want to posit 
explicit, static descriptions

(I could go on, but I think the above is sufficient ;-)

>
> Advantages of RULE over MGET:
>
>  - no change required to web infrastructure (proxies, caches, 
> webservers)

True.

>  - no change required to http client libraries (even the broken ones!)

True.

>  - simple to deploy
>         - e.g. can be done by putting text files in an existing
>         public_html dir

True, but see #5 above. I think few descriptions will be managed in
explicit, static "files".

>
> These seem pretty big advantages to me.

True. But the disadvantages I think outweigh the advantages, and the 
numerous
violations of existing architectural principles and best practices 
pretty
much nix such an approach as being globally acceptable.

Cheers,

Patrick


--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 05:36:49 UTC

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