Re: httpRange-14: Consequences of redirection

This is part of the argument.  If the *design* of a URI can avoid the 
answer about the *nature* of its denoted resource, then the evaluated 
nature is about the *design's nature* but not *resource's nature*.  That 
is why I said, 200 implies an *informational URI* but not an 
InformationResource.

Xiaoshu

Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
> 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 18:21:03 UTC