- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:15:47 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
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