Re: ldp-ISSUE-49 (Canonical-URI): Canonical URL - how to communicate its value to clients

hello john.

On 2013-03-13 7:20 , "John Arwe" <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>I'd agree that's the only safe assumption for a client in the absence of
>more information (from the server), but I think you're overstating the
>case.  3986 has an entire section on URI equivalence [1] that renders
>quite explicit
> the distinction between URIs (identifiers) and the resource(s) they
>identify.  Since the server that "owns" (provides access to) a resource
>*does* "have full knowledge or control" over it, it is in fact the only
>actor actually capable of authoritatively saying
> whether or not different URIs refer to the same resource.
>[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-6.1

i think this reference basically proves my point. equivalence is
established only through string comparison, so you read this section as
some sort of identifier canonicalization. this is very different from
scenarios where resource equivalence is in no way reflected in URI
similarity, and thus any purely syntactic approach on URIs is not working
at all.

maybe i misunderstood the original issue, but it does talk about things
such as DNS aliases, which to me are in different realm than minor URIs
differences that can be resolved by URI canonicalization.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 20:37:57 UTC