Re: metadata subjects + 200 - a poll - REALLY

I responded 1 and 2.

1. Because one principled way of resolving this matter would be to
narrow the sense of 200 so that it was clear what sort of thing you
were agreeing about. E.g. if the resource is a web page or fixed
resource, then respond 200, and insist that the representation is the
whole thing. I don't however, follow Jonathan's reasoning that "1. is
a rejection of "information resource" and "URI ownership" i.e. of most
of AWWW and parts of RFCs 2616 and 3986"

2. Because I am on the record for saying that because the sense of
information resource is so ill-defined, and because it is sanctioned
by http-range14, better to not have your ontological commitment rest
on a response code. Instead deny the assertion type: information
resource, and say what you mean more clearly using more precise
languages like RDF, OWL, and their eventual successors.

-Alan

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> I've set up a Doodle poll, named(??) by the URI obtained by
> concatenating the following two strings:
>
>        "http://doodle.com/qcygav3k8ctmht"
>           and
>        "z4"
>
> (yes, I know this list is publicly archived, I'll accept the risk).
> The poll will close in about a week or when it starts getting spammed,
> whichever comes first.
>
> I'd really like for everyone reading this list (all 14 of you) to
> weigh in. It's my best way to know I'm not talking into the wind, and
> get an idea what the received wisdom is supposed to be.
>
> Jonathan
>
>

Received on Thursday, 1 April 2010 04:54:23 UTC