- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 15:14:31 -0400
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- CC: public-lod@w3.org
On 11/4/10 12:56 PM, David Wood wrote: > 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. AMEN! Kingsley > 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 >>> >>> > > -- 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 19:15:11 UTC