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

Re: BPR: Is redirection permitted?

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:15:47 -0400
Message-Id: <7EF3AA76-F4F1-4A2D-90A3-7E2F1D10BB4C@3roundstones.com>
Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On Oct 15, 2012, at 5:20, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:

> 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

Sorry to respond to the middle of a thread - I'm traveling.

Arnaud's position seems odd to me.  Dereferencable URLs are always good IMO, but should Linked Data become somehow invalid if a URI doesn't dereference?  Of course not.  That suggests that dereferencable URLs are just a Good Thing, but not mandatory, just as they are in RDF.

Sorry to be philosophic, but I think our shared mental model bears on Andy's questions.

> 
> Can a GET on a BPR return 303?

I certainly hope so.

Regards,
Dave

> 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)
> 
>    Andy
> 
> PS which triggers the thought (unrelated):
> 
> Should a BPR respond 301 if not accessed by the canonical URL?
> 
Received on Monday, 15 October 2012 14:16:13 UTC

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