- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:12:12 +0000
- To: bill.roberts@planet.nl
- CC: public-lod@w3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
bill.roberts@planet.nl wrote: > Hi Nathan > > I'm not saying you're wrong - but could you explain why it would be a pain for FOAF terms to return 200? Which kinds of application are dereferencing those terms and relying on a 303 response? > > eg http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person currently 303s to http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/ > > What would break if http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person returned that same content with a status code of 200? > > Just trying to understand the issue Hi Bill, Good question :) If you consider a basic linked data client, with a basic ontology/schema awareness, for instance one which shows peoples FOAF profiles and uses the nice rdfs:label's for properties rather than "foaf:Person". It's going to have to GET the ontology, now when it cycles through the properties it'll find http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person and GET it, then hopefully cache it against the URL specified in the [content?] location of the final request (be that 1 or many requests). When you 200 OK the response then the ontology will be stored against http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person so when you hit http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows you need to do another GET, and be returned a full ontology again, thus you end up with 40+ requests with full responses and 40+ cached versions of the single ontology. Unless you code around it in some way, make a provision for FOAF. However, if you use 303's the then first GET redirects there, then you store the ontology against the redirected-to URI, you still have to do 40+ GETs but each one is fast with no response-body (ontology sent down the wire) then the next request for the 303'd to URI comes right out of the cache. It's still 40+ requests unless you code around it in some way, but it's better than 40+ requests and 40+ copies of the single ontology. The above, together with the deployment for FOAF is a v good reason *not* to use slash URIs for ontologies - ask Dan Bri about the FOAF rewrite rules for a second opinion on that :p Hope that explains, Best, Nathan
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 12:13:27 UTC