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

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

From: Robert Fuller <robert.fuller@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 18:38:54 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD2FDBE.10204@deri.org>
To: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
CC: public-lod@w3.org

Feel free anyone to suggest opengraph use 301, 302, 303, 307 (we support 
them all), since at the moment with a 404 they are missing out on all 
the benefit of the sindice reasoner ;-)


It is common when publishing an ontology to have the url for each 
property redirect to the rdf schema. It works great.

I would expect that a request for the aforementioned url (with accept 
header set correctly) would redirect me to (probably)

Which would download nicely with a 200 status code (it doesn't, you need 
to get the ontology from here
http://opengraphprotocol.org/schema/?format=rdf )

Later, when we encounter another opengraph property
We would also hope to get a 303, which would again redirect us to

Of course, we don't want to bring down opengraph server, so we have 
already cached the schema the first time we downloaded (if it worked) 
and know not to fetch it again now.

In my experience processing millions of rdf documents daily, the 303 has 
proven quite useful and very efficient, and I would definitely recommend 
it's use to opengraph and other publishers of ontologies.


On 04/11/10 13:22, Ian Davis 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

Robert Fuller
Research Associate
Sindice Team
DERI, Galway
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 18:39:28 UTC

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