W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2009

Re: RDF Update Feeds + URI time travel on HTTP-level

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:39:17 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0911220139j40bb8fb9sa85310419b774d1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Georgi Kobilarov <georgi.kobilarov@gmx.de>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
2009/11/22 Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>:
> On 20 Nov 2009, at 19:07, Chris Bizer wrote:


> From a web architecture POV it seems pretty solid to me. Doing stuff via
> headers is considered bad if you could just as well do it via links and
> additional URIs, but you can argue that the time dimension is such a
> universal thing that a header-based solution is warranted.

Sounds good to me too, but x-headers are a jump, I think perhaps it's
a question worthy of throwing at the W3C TAG - pretty sure they've
looked at similar stuff in the past, but things are changing fast...

>From what I can gather, proper diffs over time are hard (long before
you get to them logics). But Web-like diffs don't have to be - can't
be any less reliable than my online credit card statement. Bit
worrying there are so many different approaches available, sounds like
there could be a lot of coding time wasted.

But then again, might well be one for evolution - and in the virtual
world trying stuff out is usually worth it.

> The main drawback IMO is that existing clients, such as all web browsers,
> will be unable to access the archived versions, because they don't know
> about the header. If you are archiving web pages or RDF document, then you
> could add links that lead clients to the archived versions, but that won't
> work for images, PDFs and so forth.

Hmm. For one, browsers are in flux, for two then you probably wouldn't
expect that kind of agent to give you anything but the latest.
If I need last years version, I follow my nose through URIs (as in svn
etc) - that kind of thing has to be a fallback, imho.

> In summary, I think it's pretty cool.

Cool idea, for sure. It is something strong...ok, temporal stuff
should be available down at quite a low level, especially given that
things like xmpp will be bouncing around - but I reckon Richard's
right in suggesting the plain old URI thing will currently serve most


Received on Sunday, 22 November 2009 09:39:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:54 UTC