Re: naming resources - Slug-Header

On 10/01/13 09:45, Wilde, Erik wrote:
> hello all.
>
> On 2013-01-10 10:39 , "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Henry Story wrote:
>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 11:54, Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> An alternative proposal might be to just take the rdfs:label (or maybe
>>> >from list of established vocab for 'labels') from the POSTed body as a
>>>> 'hint' for a name (?)
>>> That seems to be a compatible proposal.
>> Well, as soon as you have two ways of doing the same thing, you end up
>> dealing with conflicts (setting precedence, be sure that a client that
>> uses only RDF is not ignoring the SLUG header etc...). It is far better
>> to
>> avoid that kind of duplicates.
>
> +1; anything that can be handled on the protocol level should be handled
> on the protocol level. falling back to content sniffing should only be
> done in those cases where we cannot properly expose interaction semantics
> through HTTP mechanisms. so my vote goes to adopting Slug, and using this
> as the only mechanism.
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.

I prefer the Slug mechanism but for a different reason.

The body of a request is the desired state of the target.  It is not a 
description of the request itself but the final state of the resource. 
"<> rdfs:label" is about the resource.  So I don't know what the subject 
of the rdfs:label would be.  I think rdfs:label is use for other things 
(display labels).

	And

Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 10:29:30 UTC