- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 11:29:38 -0400
- To: bill.roberts@planet.nl
- CC: nathan@webr3.org, public-lod@w3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Message-ID: <4CD422E2.3050000@openlinksw.com>
On 11/5/10 9:13 AM, bill.roberts@planet.nl wrote: > > Hi Nathan - thanks for clear answer. I see the point and also the > argument for using hash URIs with ontologies. > > In practice how I get round this prob is to preload my triple store > with the handful of common ontologies I know I'm going to use, so > don't need to deref them as I go along. > > Cheers > > Bill > Bill, What happens when the ontologies evolve? Kingsley > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nathan [mailto:nathan@webr3.org] > Sent: Fri 11/5/2010 1:12 PM > To: bill.roberts@planet.nl > Cc: public-lod@w3.org; Dan Brickley > Subject: Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: > Is 303 really necessary?) > > 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 > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 15:30:11 UTC