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 18:48:38 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD30006.10000@deri.org>
To: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
CC: public-lod@w3.org
It has been pointed out to me that the many resources we are 
encountering for
http://opengraphprotocol.org/schema/latitude
are actually wrong - so deserving a 404, the resource should correctly 
be written:

http://ogp.me/ns#latitude

But never mind, that doesn't resolve either...

On 04/11/10 18:38, Robert Fuller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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 ;-)
>
> http://opengraphprotocol.org/schema/latitude
>
> 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)
> http://opengraphprotocol.org/schema
>
> 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
> http://opengraphprotocol.org/schema/longitude
> We would also hope to get a 303, which would again redirect us to
> http://opengraphprotocol.org/schema
>
> 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.
>
> Robert.
>
>
>
> 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
http://sindice.com/
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 18:49:13 UTC

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