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

RE: httpRange-14: Consequences of redirection

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:53:35 +0000
To: "wangxiao@musc.edu" <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Cc: Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "sean@miscoranda.com" <sean@miscoranda.com>, "richard@cyganiak.de" <richard@cyganiak.de>
Message-ID: <9674EA156DA93A4F855379AABDA4A5C604FC841D80@G5W0277.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Fortunately, :-),  http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource should never make it to the request line of an HTTP request and will have no associated response code. Though of course http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema might.

Regards

Stuart
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu]
> Sent: 29 November 2007 16:27
> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Cc: Tore Eriksson; www-tag@w3.org; sean@miscoranda.com;
> richard@cyganiak.de
> Subject: Re: httpRange-14: Consequences of redirection
>
> I don't think which HTTP response pattern/code is the core
> issue.  The core issue is if we should be allowed to use any
> HTTP code to judge the nature of a resource.
>
> The fundemental assumption of RDF is that everything is an
> instance of rdfs:Resource.  If somehow, this fundamental
> belief can be challenged, such as by checking if
> "rdfs:Resource" returns a particular HTTP code, then the
> entire RDF system itself is already put on a shaky ground.
>
> If we want to judge this sort of thing, it must be outside of
> RDF but not within.  The irony, however, is this - if we
> don't care to and cannot judge if someone does it right or
> wrong, then why bother?
>
> Xiaoshu
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 16:58:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 November 2007 16:58:19 GMT