- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 06:51:47 +0100
- To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
All, A couple of questions (2)... 1: URI Scheme Issue(?) The model of Web Access Control with FOAF+SSL will often lead to us CRUDing resources via HTTPS, and often to retrieve them too. Linked Data is currently, and predominantly served via http scheme URIs, not https. Often the model of exposing resources via HTTP but updating via HTTPS will appeal / seem logical. However, if we GET http://a and then PUT/DELETE to https://a - these are (afaict) two completely different resources, which surely means that we will need to stick to pure https scheme uri's for all resources which could be subject to web access control via foaf+ssl - ? 2: RESTful Linked Data / HATEOAS / Header dependencies. Currently, there seems to be a tendency to expose lot's of additional information for each resource via http headers, Link alternative, edit, MS-Author-via and so forth - for a long time I haven't considered the implications of this, until today. I would ask then, why are we placing this Header dependency in to our linked data - and moreover, why are we not putting this vital information *in* our rdf documents? [please read on before responding] Of primary concern are: - rel alternative - rel edit (sub, describing the edit/delete methods, SPARQL-Update / GET|PUT etc) - rel acl - rel memento A simple context for your consideration is in syndicated & cached content; if some rdf is stored in a replicated or personal data store, and I SPARQL describe it, surely all of this information is currently missing, but extremely useful (if not vital) to have? I'm not saying we should remove it from HTTP headers, but surely this should be the "nice to have" where it is vital in the RDF & optional in the headers. If these have been covered previously, please do link to the resolutions - if not then I believe it would be in all of our best interests to resolve and come to agreements sooner rather than later :) Best & hope this mail finds you all well, Nathan
Received on Thursday, 13 May 2010 05:53:16 UTC