- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 19:08:13 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4CD5DFDD.8040402@openlinksw.com>
On 11/6/10 4:42 PM, David Booth wrote: >>>> httpRange-14 requires that a URI with a 200 response MUST be an IR; > ^^^^^^^ > Not quite. The httpRange-14 decision says that the resource *is* an IR: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039 > >>>> 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. > To be clear, Ian's toucan URI *does* identify an information resource, > whether or not it *also* identifies a toucan: > > $ curl -I 'http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan' > HTTP/1.1 200 OK > Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 20:05:57 GMT > Server: Apache/2.2.8 (Ubuntu) DAV/2 SVN/1.4.6 PHP/5.2.4-2ubuntu5.10 > with Suhosin-Patch mod_wsgi/1.3 Python/2.5.2 > Content-Location: toucan.rdf > Vary: negotiate > TCN: choice > Last-Modified: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:24:27 GMT > ETag: "264186-403-4944ad745a8c0;4944ad754eb00" > Accept-Ranges: bytes > Content-Length: 1027 > Content-Type: application/rdf+xml; qs=0.9 > > Thus, Ian has created an ambiguity by returning a 200 response. There > is nothing fundamentally wrong with this, as ambiguity of resource > identity is inescapable anyway, and we just have to learn to deal with > it. However, for those applications that need to distinguish between > the toucan and its web page, Ian is effectively suggesting the > *heuristic* that if the content served in the 200 response says that the > URI identifies a toucan, then the app should ignore the fact that the > URI also identifies a web page, and treat the URI as though it *only* > identifies the toucan. > > > David, What about this: 1. a 200 OK response infers that a URI is a URL (an Address) since its an indication of that a Resource has been located 2. existence of a self-describing resource discovered via "Content-Location" header value (e.g. touscan.rdf) can result in an override if the data states that the URI is a Name. I really think we have to emphasize the "Address" and "Name" aspects of a generic URI, at every opportunity. Personally, I think it helps understand what the actual ambiguity is about. This option showcases good RDF dog-fooding, especially as the Semantic Web Project has always been about self-describing data :-) -- 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 Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:08:44 UTC