Re: Is 303 really necessary?

<snip>
> It is *a* solution -- not necessarily *the* solution.
</snip>
understood.

<snip>
> And if you don't
> want it centralized, there are ways to get around that also, which I
> discussed in 2005:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0057.html
</snip>
The alternate method described there looks (to me) quite a bit like
Ian's proposal (using a triple to sort out the indirection).

<snip>
It is conceptually similar in that it can define its own conventions and
semantics.
</snip>
yes, that was my observation.

<snip>
However, the key point is that it is *layered* on the good
old http scheme.  Thus, if you click on this URI:

 http://t-d-b.org/?http://dbooth.org/2005/dbooth/

it works, with no changes needed to your browser
</snip>
So the thinking here is to use the "concept" of a scheme without
actually minting one because the most common client today would throw
an error if an actual scheme was used, right?


mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me


#RESTFest 2010
http://rest-fest.googlecode.com




On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 20:42, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 18:27 -0400, mike amundsen wrote:
>> <snip>
>> Also please note that if you mint your URIs using a 303-redirect service
>> such as http://thing-described-by.org/ then the extra network hop from
>> the 303 redirect could be optimized away by parsing the URI, as
>> described here:
>> http://thing-described-by.org/#optimizing
>> For example, you would have the relationship:
>>
>>  <http://t-d-b.org/?http://example/toucan-page>
>>      :isDescribedBy
>>           <http://example/toucan-page> .
>> </snip>
>> So the solution is to introduce a URI convention (assigning meaning to
>> the convention) and use a central service to implement this feature.
>
> It is *a* solution -- not necessarily *the* solution.  And if you don't
> want it centralized, there are ways to get around that also, which I
> discussed in 2005:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0057.html
>
>>
>> <snip>
>> so if the toucan were denoted by the URI
>> http://t-d-b.org/?http://example/toucan-page
>> the you know that its description is located at
>> http://example/toucan-page
>> and there is no need to actually dereference the other URI.
>> </snip>
>> And to expect consumers of the URI to also understand and honor that
>> convention.
>>
>> That sure looks|sounds to me like a new URI scheme.
>
> It is not a URI scheme as defined in RFC 3986:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986
> It is conceptually similar in that it can define its own conventions and
> semantics.  However, the key point is that it is *layered* on the good
> old http scheme.  Thus, if you click on this URI:
>
>  http://t-d-b.org/?http://dbooth.org/2005/dbooth/
>
> it works, with no changes needed to your browser.  In contrast, if you
> click on this URI:
>
>  tdb:http://dbooth.org/2005/dbooth/
>
> You get an error.
>
>
>
> --
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
> http://dbooth.org/
>
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
>
>

Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 02:29:37 UTC