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

Re: Making MGET more GET-friendly?

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:50:58 +0200
Message-Id: <AFFAA81A-799B-11D8-ADAF-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, "ext Dirk-Willem van Gulik" <dirkx@asemantics.com>, "ext Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, David Powell <djpowell@djpowell.net>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>


On Mar 11, 2004, at 15:41, Patrick Stickler wrote:

>
> On Mar 11, 2004, at 15:11, ext Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>> Architecturally, you seem to be advocating making a whole bunch of
>>>> very interesting data not addressable by URIs.   Seems like a step
>>>> backwards.
>>>
>>> You have misunderstood me. I'm not advocating not denoting 
>>> descriptions
>>> with distinct URIs. The Nokia implementation provides a URI for every
>>> description.
>>
>> How, via a Location header on the response to MGET?   And that
>> Location can be accessed via GET to get the same content?
>>
>> That seems fine.
>
> Yup.
>

In actuality, I'm using the Content-Location header to specify the URI
of the description (entity) being returned by the MGET request, which
seems the correct header to use.

The Location header, as I understand it, is particular to the resource
denoted by the request URI (i.e. an alias, owl:sameAs) rather than
the entity (representation/description of the resource) being returned.

???

Patrick


--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 06:51:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:20:07 UTC