W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2007

Re: httpRange-14 Adjunct: 302 is Valid for Non-Information Resources

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:55:58 +0000
Message-ID: <b6bb4d890712040855r53ae83f9o52185fe0dfe1f8a1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@hp.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

On Dec 3, 2007 8:39 PM, David Booth <dbooth@hp.com> wrote:

> I think the Semantic Web's use of URIs and HTTP is *layered* on
> top of the old-fashioned Web's use of URIs and HTTP.

If that were so, we could use any HTTP URI to refer to any resource if
we wanted to. The only reason I'm aware that we cannot is because of
the interpretation of the "network resources" passage in RFC 2616.

I've never seen a compelling reason why we must disambiguate between
information resources and non-information resources using HTTP
responses. What are the intrinsic properties of information resources
that are so important that all Semantic Web HTTP user-agents *must* be
told whether a resource is an information resource or not?

Why can't that information just be garnered from whatever RDF the
Semantic Web agent has to hand? That's all it can do for every single
other property of a resource.

Generally if I request an HTTP URI and it sends me back some RDF
giving properties of the resource denoted by the URI, I take that as
authoritative. Why do we need this weird implicit and useless classing
via HTTP responses?

-- 
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 17:02:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:51 GMT