W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > May 2010

Re: [pedantic-web] Re: The OWL Ontology URI

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:28:19 -0500
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D0997048-FF15-450B-A82A-258E84F4687E@ihmc.us>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>

On May 12, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:

> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>> Well, according to http-range-14, as I understand it, if a bare URI  
>> gives a
>> 200-level response to an HTTP GET, then it (the URI) denotes/refers  
>> to the
>> resource that emits that response.
>
> I agreed with you for a while when you first wrote about this theory,
> since it's an elegant theory, but now I think it makes more sense to
> say that the *server* emits the response, not the document.

Well then, say that the URI denotes whatever it is in the server that  
the response is a REST-representation of. And Im pretty sure that this  
is what I am (perhaps slightly loosely) here calling a "document", ie,  
pretty much, some thing encoded in bytes in digital memory. Not a set  
of triples, anyway.  The main point of my message still stands: you  
can't refer to an RDF graph using a bare URI which returns a 200 level  
code, because that reference is used up referring to something else  
that is not a graph.

> Not only
> is this more consistent with the way RFC 2616 and AWWW are written,
> but it lets you have a URI U that refers to a document, where a server
> responds with a 200 for GET U.

That is exactly what I wanted to say. Perhaps my formulation which has  
the document doing the responding is careless, apologies. (This is why  
I like the 'http endpoint' way of talking, by the way.)

> This seems natural and desirable.

Agreed. And to return to the main point, a document is not a graph, no  
matter how you cut it.

Pat

> But
> for any sensible definition of "document", <U> is going to be
> incapable of emitting a response. That's why it has a server to help
> it out...  in your formulation a 200 response would be prohibited
> since <U> can't emit it.
>
> Jonathan
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 15:29:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:08 UTC