- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:24:43 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>, W3C-TAG <www-tag@w3.org>, semantic-web-ig list <semantic-web-ig.list@reuters.com>
On 2007-09 -29, at 12:56, Dan Brickley wrote: > Tim Berners-Lee wrote: >> On 2007-09 -27, at 09:47, Misha Wolf wrote: >>> >>> How about 303 redirects? >> The way we are using them for the Semantic Web, when <A> redirects >> 303 to <B>, >> then <B> is a document describing <A>. They are not URIs for te >> same thing, >> so you don't have a choice. The URI to remember for the thing is A. > > Would it be wrong for B to be a(nother) URI for the resource? eg. > an LSID, URN, java:, phone: or other non-http URI? The 303 "See other" redirect I take as meaning "other". Not identifying the same thing. If you want to tell someone about a new URI for the same thing, when it would be appropriate to use a 301 Moved or 302 Found redirect, depending on whether you wanted someone to use the later or the original URI in future reference. The 301 redirect is a warning message indicating an unsatisfactory situation. It indicates the caller used the wrong URI. It should not be designed into a protocol as normal operation. Now in principle, it could be all kinds of things, but to make the architecture work, it has to be something useful. If you redirect to a phone number, the only way a machine can figure out why that is useful it to call the number, and ask, "Hey, I was just doing a GET on http://bio.org/protein/1234 and I got your number". So I can't see a 303 as being useful except when <B> is a document about <A>. Once you have done a 303 redirect, or you have client-side stripped a hash from A to get a documet about A, then of course you can in that document put all kinds of RDF information about A, and about the document (like translation, license, etc etc). So you don't need any more HTTP protocol metadata. Tim
Received on Monday, 1 October 2007 14:45:35 UTC