- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 21:50:36 +0000
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 15:34 -0500, David Booth wrote: > On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 10:11 +0000, Toby Inkster wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 13:22:09 +0000 > > Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com> wrote: > > > > > http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary > > > > Ian brings up numerous difficulties with 303 responses. > > > > The two biggest issues in my opinion are: > > > > 1. 303s can be tricky to configure unless you know your > > way around the server environment you're using, and > > have sufficient permissions on the server; and > > > > 2. They require an additional HTTP request to get to the > > data the client actually wants. > > > > I think that without using RDF-specific publishing platforms (think > > WordPress for Linked Data) #1 is always going to be a difficulty. > > Why not use a 303-redirect service such as > http://thing-described-by.org/ or http://t-d-b.org/ ? That makes it > trivially easy to do 303 redirects. Because the domain of the URI conveys some provenance and trust connotations, particularly when dealing with public sector bodies. That gets lost when redirected through a third party service. For many of the groups I deal with that would not be acceptable. In cases where third party redirection is acceptable then there are also PURLs which arguably provide stronger expectations of longevity. Dave
Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 21:51:12 UTC