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

Re: 200 OK with Content-Location might work: But maybe it can be simpler?

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:33:28 +0100
Message-ID: <4CD43FE8.1090209@insa-lyon.fr>
To: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
CC: public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Le 05/11/2010 18:25, Giovanni Tummarello a écrit :
> How about something that's totally independant from HEADER issues?
>
> think normal people here. absolutely 0 interest to mess with headers
> and http responses.. absolutely no business incentive to do it.

Solutions to technical problems are not for little kids, grandmothers 
and casual Web users. Getting a Web page on the Web is actually really 
complex, you have to do a lot of stuff with the header, maybe 
content-negociate etc. Yet, little kids and grandmothers can jump from 
webpages to webpages.

>
> as a baseline think someone wanting to annotate with RDFa a hand
> crafted, apached served html file.
> really.. as simple as serving this people.

Yep, implement the HTTP header stuff in the RDFa editor and it becomes 
as simple as web browsing 101.

>
> as simple as anyone who's using opengraph just copy pastes into their
> HTML template.. as simple as this
> really, please, its the only thing that can work?

The complexity of a technical solution has really nothing to do with the 
difficulty of using the solution. Don't worry Gio, this technicality (if 
it's ever implemented) won't make Sindice and Sig.ma less user-friendly ;)

>
> Giovanni


Cheers,
AZ.


>
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Nathan<nathan@webr3.org>  wrote:
>> Mike Kelly wrote:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-12#page-14
>>
>> snipped and fuller version inserted:
>>
>>    4.  If the response has a Content-Location header field, and that URI
>>        is not the same as the effective request URI, then the response
>>        asserts that its payload is a representation of the resource
>>        identified by the Content-Location URI.  However, such an
>>        assertion cannot be trusted unless it can be verified by other
>>        means (not defined by HTTP).
>>
>>> If a client wants to make a statement  about the specific document
>>> then a response that includes a content-location is giving you the
>>> information necessary to do that correctly. It's complemented and
>>> further clarified in the entity body itself through something like
>>> isDescribedBy.
>>
>> I stand corrected, think there's something in this, and it could maybe
>> possibly provide the semantic indirection needed when Content-Location is
>> there, and different to the effective request uri, and complimented by some
>> statements (perhaps RDF in the body, or Link header, or html link element)
>> to assert the same.
>>
>> Covers a few use-cases, might have legs (once HTTP-bis is a standard?).
>>
>> Nicely caught Mike!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>>
>


-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
Researcher at:
Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information
Database Group
7 Avenue Jean Capelle
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
France
Lecturer at:
Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon
20 Avenue Albert Einstein
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
France
antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 17:34:09 UTC

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