W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2010

RE: 204 No Content for a resource which is known but has no representation yet?

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:31:00 -0700
To: <nathan@webr3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002201cac3b5$437e2d80$ca7a8880$@org>
In reply to the quest:

> .... I just need
> some kind person from IETF/W3C (pref TAG) to say this doesn't
conflict
> with the architecture of the world wide web or conflict with
HTTP/REST.

> Which means, somebody like Larry, or Roy, Tim etc; or even Jonathan
Rees
> as this very much ties in with the work on
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/http-semantics-report.html

==================================================================
Following http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZR64EF3OpA 
a voice speaks:

    Nathan! What You Propose Does NOT Conflict With The
    Architecture of The World Wide Web, and does NOT
    conflict with HTTP/REST.

Larry Masinter
Elected Member of W3C Technical Architecture Group
Duke of URL
===================================================================

Does that help?

Personally, I would question the assumption:

> I'm stuck with Linked Data, which is tied to the http scheme and
> has a constraint that the http scheme URIs we use as identifiers
must be
> dereferenced via http. The only way is forwards from what I can
tell.

>From my point of view AWWW is a useful document, a good start, but
an incomplete architecture for the World Wide Web being built, 
deployed and used by millions of developers and billions of end users.
Writing down an architecture for this is an exercise in cat-herding.

My personal views are that too many systems are tied to the "HTTP"
protocol; that the HTTP status codes are ad-hoc; that tying
"semantic meaning" to "operational behavior" (what a HTTP
server happens to return) is not a very good design for a 
"knowledge representation" system;  and that if that's the
starting point for "Linked Data", the result will be that
"Linked Data" is fragile.

It would seem to me that it should be reasonable to distribute 
information about resources independent of whether the
method of delivery is HTTP, instant messaging, news feeds, 
"sneaker net", bit torrent, shared file systems, or carrier pigeon. 

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Sunday, 14 March 2010 20:31:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:20 GMT