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

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

>
> 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.


Seems this denies 200 on any content negotiable resource, no? Since any
single one of the alternates "uses up" the URI, leaving nothing left for the
others?

-Alan


>
>
>  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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>