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

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:31:14 -0400
Message-ID: <4CD43F62.5070307@openlinksw.com>
To: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
CC: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, public-lod@w3.org
On 11/5/10 5:28 AM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 4 November 2010 18:42, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com>  wrote:
>> Nobody ever mandated 303 redirection.
> I've never encountered anyone in the community that has recently
> advocated (i.e. since the httpRange-14 discussion) or any
> documentation that promotes anything other than using # URIs or the
> 303 redirect approach.
>
> So in the circumstance where someone doesn't want to use a # URI, what
> options are available? Can point to a document that illustrates an
> alternate approach? It's not really choice if there's only one option.
>
> You also frequently cite dbpedia as the de facto standard model for
> publishing Linked Data. This uses the 303 pattern, giving further
> prominence to that approach.
>
>> It has always been an option, and so it should remain.
> But if there are other options that have a better mix of advantages
> and dis-advantages to the two that the community has promoted thus
> far, then we should include those too.
>
> Cheers,
>
> L.
>
Leigh,

Unfortuantely, I missed this mail yesterday. Anyway, bearing in mind 
current state of dialog, I don't have an issue with any solution that's 
mutually inclusive relative to existing 303 practices. So yes, re. 
inclusion.

-- 

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 17:31:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:51 UTC