- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:57:16 +0000
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- CC: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
Nathan wrote: > Dave Reynolds wrote: >> On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:11 +0000, Norman Gray wrote: >>> Greetings, >>> >>> On 2010 Nov 4, at 13:22, Ian Davis wrote: >>> >>>> http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary >>> I haven't been aware of the following formulation of Ian's >>> problem+solution in the thread so far. Apologies if I've missed it, >>> or if (as I guess) it's deducible from someone's longer post. >>> >>> vvvv >>> httpRange-14 requires that a URI with a 200 response MUST be an IR; a >>> URI with a 303 MAY be a NIR. >>> >>> Ian is (effectively) suggesting that a URI with a 200 response MAY be >>> an IR, in the sense that it is defeasibly taken to be an IR, unless >>> this is contradicted by a self-referring statement within the RDF >>> obtained from the URI. >>> ^^^^ >>> >>> Is that about right? That fits in with Harry's remarks about IRW, >>> and the general suspicion of deriving important semantics from the >>> details of the HTTP transaction. Here, the only semantics derivable >>> from the transaction is defeasible. In the absence of RDF, this is >>> equivalent to the httpRange-14 finding, so might require only >>> adjustment, rather than replacement, of httpRange-14. >> >> Very nice. That seems like an accurate and very helpful way of looking >> at Ian's proposal. > > The other way of looking at it, is that the once clear message of: > > Don't use /slash URIs for things, use fragments, and if you flat out > refuse to do this then at least use the 303 to keep distinct names > > has been totally lost. > > The advice is not that /slash URIs are okay and use them if you like, > it's that they're not ok and you should be using #fragments. Don't dress > the TAG finding up in other words to make it seem more favourable than > it actually is. > > I think this needs to be made clear for all those who don't realise. missed a bit.. "200-means-web-page", not: 200 might mean, you can think it may mean, may be an IR.
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 12:58:28 UTC