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 15:14:31 -0400
Message-ID: <4CD30617.9050005@openlinksw.com>
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.


> 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



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

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