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:


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


Herbert Van de Sompel

Herbert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
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