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

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

From: Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:10:29 -0700
Cc: "Michael L. Nelson" <mln@cs.odu.edu>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <C51BCA02-1386-4C7F-A21B-3255A8248AAA@gmail.com>
To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Nov 23, 2009, at 9:02 PM, Herbert Van de Sompel wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 4:59 PM, Erik Hetzner wrote:
>> At Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:40:33 -0500,
>> Mark Baker wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com 
>>> > wrote:
>>>> It should be up to resource creators to determine when the nature  
>>>> of a
>>>> resource changes across time. A web architecture that requires  
>>>> every
>>>> single edit to have a different identifier is a large hassle and
>>>> likely won't catch on if people find that they can work fine with a
>>>> system that evolves constantly using semi-constant identifiers,  
>>>> rather
>>>> than through a series of mandatory time based checkpoints.
>>>
>>> You seem to have read more into my argument than was there, and
>>> created a strawman; I agree with the above.
>>>
>>> My claim is simply that all HTTP requests, no matter the headers,  
>>> are
>>> requests upon the current state of the resource identified by the
>>> Request-URI, and therefore, a request for a representation of the
>>> state of "Resource X at time T" needs to be directed at the URI for
>>> "Resource X at time T", not "Resource X".
>>
>> I think this is a very compelling argument.
>
> Actually, I don't think it is.  The issue was also brought up (in a  
> significantly more tentative manner) in Pete Johnston blog entry on  
> eFoundations (http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/2009/11/memento-and-negotiating-on-time.html 
> ). Tomorrow, we will post a response that will try and show that  
> "current state" issue is - as far as we can see - not quite as  
> "written in stone" as suggested above in the specs that matter in  
> this case, i.e. Architecture of the World Wide Web and RFC 2616.  
> Both are interestingly vague about this.
>
>


Just to let you know that our response to some issues re Memento  
raised here and on Pete Johnston's blog post (http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/2009/11/memento-and-negotiating-on-time.html 
) is now available at:

http://www.cs.odu.edu/~mln/memento/response-2009-11-24.html

We have also submitted this as an inline Comment to Pete's blog, but  
Comments require approval and that has not happened yet.

Greetings

Herbert Van de Sompel


==
Herbert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
tel. +1 505 667 1267






Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 23:11:17 UTC

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