W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 12:10:39 -0400
Message-ID: <4CD2DAFF.5050604@openlinksw.com>
To: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
CC: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
On 11/4/10 11:21 AM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
> Hi Ian
>
> no its not needed see this discussion
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Jul/0086.html
> pointing to 203 406 or thers..
>
> ..but a number of social community mechanisms will activate if you
> bring this up, ranging from russian style "you're being antipatriotic
> criticizing the existing status quo " to "..but its so deployed now"
> and ".. you're distracting the community from other more important
> issues ", none of this will make sense if analized by proper logical
> means of course (e.g. by a proper IT manager in a proper company, paid
> based on actual results).
>
> But the core of the matter really is : who cares. My educated guess
> looking at Sindice flowing data is that everyday out of 100 new sites
> on  web of data 99.9 simply use RDFa which doesnt have this issue.
>
> choose how to publish yourself but here is another one. If you chose
> NOT to use RDFa you will miss out on anything which will enhance the
> user experience based on annotations. As an example see our entry in
> the  semantic web challange [1].
>
> Giovanni
>
> [1] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~pmika/swc/submissions/swc2010_submission_19.pdf

Giovanni,

Could I paraphrase, if you don't mind?

I think you are saying that the following distractions are irrelevant to 
the fundamental goals of Linked Data:

1. Apache capabilities
2. Apache access
3. Access to other Web Servers
4. RDF formats such as RDF/XML (which most see as being RDF)
5. SPARQL
6. Heuristics for Resolvable Names (303 and friends).

If so, I agree totally!

BTW - RDFa is unfortunately named since it conveys the misconception 
that its an RDF derivative when it isn't. I say this bearing that the 
rest of the world (modulo LOD and broader Semantic Web communities) 
continue to perceive RDF as "owl:sameAs"  RDF/XML.

Yes, RDFa lets you drop a descriptor (information resource) anywhere on 
the Web without breaking the fundamental essence of the Linked Data 
concept :-)


Kingsley

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Ian Davis<me@iandavis.com>  wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The subject of this email is the title of a blog post I wrote last
>> night questioning whether we actually need to continue with the 303
>> redirect approach for Linked Data. My suggestion is that replacing it
>> with a 200 is in practice harmless and that nothing actually breaks on
>> the web. Please take a moment to read it if you are interested.
>>
>> http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:11:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:51 UTC