- From: Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:10:29 -0700
- To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
- Cc: "Michael L. Nelson" <mln@cs.odu.edu>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Message-Id: <C51BCA02-1386-4C7F-A21B-3255A8248AAA@gmail.com>
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