- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 12:56:54 -0400
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, public-lod@w3.org, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Hi all, This is a horrible idea, for the following reasons (in my opinion and suitably caveated): - Some small number of people and organizations need to provide back-links on the Web since the Web doesn't have them. 303s provide a generic mechanism for that to occur. URL curation is a useful and proper activity on the Web, again in my opinion. - Overloading the use of 200 (OK) for metadata creates an additional ambiguity in that the address of a resource is now conflated with the address of a resource described by metadata. - W3C TAG findings such as http-range-14 are really very difficult to overcome socially. - Wide-spread mishandling of HTTP content negotiation makes it difficult if not impossible to rely upon. Until we can get browser vendors and server vendors to handle content negotiation in a reasonable way, reliance on it is not a realistic option. That means that there needs to be an out-of-band mechanism to disambiguate physical, virtual and conceptual resources on the Web. 303s plus http-range-14 provide enough flexibility to do that; I'm not convinced that overloading 200 does. /me ducks for the inevitable mud slinging this list has become. Regards, Dave On Nov 4, 2010, at 12:33, Harry Halpin wrote: > 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 > > In a purely personal capacity, I like the approach of just using 200, > i.e. with RDFa or whatever, rather than 303. If we want to > disambiguate URIs, the IRW ontology [1] offers a nice class called > "nonInformationResource" and "InformationResource" that one can use to > disambiguate. See this paper [2] on "an Ontology of Resources for > Linked Data" for a walk-through example. > > My reasoning is not architectural, but simply efficiency. It is rather > inefficient to have a redirection in the form of a 303 if one can get > the same info without using 303. > > Note that Microsoft's oData may one day be a serious competitor to > Linked Data, and if you asked many programmers and open data people > who are not already committed to RDF if they would use Atom + HTTP GET > and no redirects over RDF/XML and a weird 303 redirect, I think the > answer would be rather self-evident. > > [1]http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/web/irw.owl > [2]http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2009/papers/ldow2009_paper19.pdf > > > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ian >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:57:33 UTC