W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: BPR: Is redirection permitted?

From: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 08:22:19 -0400
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF81FE53D0.560B6B1A-ON85257A98.0043820B-85257A98.0043F629@us.ibm.com>
Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote on 10/15/2012 05:20:37 
AM:

> From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
> To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, 
> Date: 10/15/2012 05:21 AM
> Subject: BPR: Is redirection permitted?
> 
> On 11/10/12 18:02, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> 
> > I actually agree with you on the fact that RDF and Linked Data are
> > different - meaning there is a difference between the two, namely:
> > URIs in Linked Data are dereferencable URLs
> 
> Can a GET on a BPR return 303?
> Can BPR URIs have a fragment? (c.f. 4.1.2)
> 
> The intro to section 4 says that BPRs come from linked data rules and 
> the Linked Data page mentions fragment and 303.
> 
> Or does the spec not care? (an example with a # would be good in that 
case)

I don't think the spec should care, unless there are specific cases were 
we need to use this code or that we need to add clarity.  Adding an 
example with '#' could help with it.

> 
>    Andy
> 
> PS which triggers the thought (unrelated):
> 
> Should a BPR respond 301 if not accessed by the canonical URL?

I would say that only if the there request-uri or subject uri are known to 
the server as previous URIs that have moved permanently then yes, 301s is 
what I would expect.  This falls in line with HTTP, so not sure we'd need 
to restate it.

Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> 
http://open-services.net
Received on Monday, 15 October 2012 12:22:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:32 UTC