W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2009

RE: Link: relation registry and 303

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:59:55 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Message-ID: <233101CD2D78D64E8C6691E90030E5C8293BAE3077@GVW1120EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Hi Mark,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
> Sent: 30 January 2009 04:36
> To: Tim Berners-Lee
> Cc: Jonathan Rees; www-tag@w3.org WG; Lisa Dusseault
> Subject: Re: Link: relation registry and 303
> 
> 
> FWIW -- I'm in the process of editing link-04, and consensus was  
> already moving in the direction of NOT having the registered relations  
> be URIs, because of the complexity that brought to interpreting  
> (historically, they've been compared case-insensitively). That means  
> that, to some degree, this discussion is moot.
> 
> The extension relations (i.e., non-registered) are still URIs, and as  
> mentioned before, I'm happy to say that those URIs refer to documents  
> describing the relations, if that will allow us to move forward.

Hmmm... the Semantic Web is, and is going to continue to be, full of contractions. An HTTP response may cause one to believe that a thing is likely to be a 'document' whilst detailed examination of what descriptive (of somethingelse) representation (bitstream and metadata) from another transaction - attemted dereference of the link name -  may cause you to believe that a thing referred to is a relation (as in describedBy). This is a general problem - there are many source of information about a thing and they won't all agree and systems (inc. semantic web systems) will have to live with that and develop stratgies to deal with it...

So... lets just leave the registered relation names as absolute URIRefs, and lets please continue to take the view that the things those registered and "non-registered" full URIRefs denote are link relations rather than there describing documents - and lets just concede (if we have to) that as a source of information about the link-relation that description document is more to be believed than what might be inferred from a 200 or 303 response code.

But... please lets not jump through some twisted hoops that have some of the link rel names being URI (albeit relative URI) and others not... and please, if we mean the URI to denote link relations lets say that that's what they denote when we describe them - in the long run I think that would make life much simpler for someone 5-10years down the road wondering what planet we were on.

> Cheers,

BR

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 17:04:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:11 GMT