W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)

From: Robert Fuller <robert.fuller@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:17:11 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD41FF7.1010909@deri.org>
To: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
CC: nathan@webr3.org, bill.roberts@planet.nl, public-lod@w3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>


On 05/11/10 15:06, Ian Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Nathan<nathan@webr3.org>  wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But in practice, don't you look in your cache first? If you already
> have a label for foaf:knows because you looked up foaf:mbox a few
> seconds ago why would you issue another request?

Sindice would, because Fred could also define a label for foaf:knows in 
the flintstone schema. The Sindice contextualised reasoning is performed 
in a sandbox to ensure that Fred's malicious schema isn't going to 
pollute any inferencing from your document, unless your document also 
references Fred's schema. Without checking we can't be sure that 
foaf:knows and foaf:mbox are defined in the same ontology.


-- 
Robert Fuller
Research Associate
Sindice Team
DERI, Galway
http://sindice.com/
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 15:17:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:06 UTC