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

Re: Status codes / IR vs. NIR -- 303 vs. 200

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:00:26 +0000
Message-ID: <4CDB15FA.80902@webr3.org>
To: Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>
CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Please tell me that you're not trying to infer that using the HyperText 
Transfer Protocol to update an HTML document which describes the staff 
in a staff-of-three company, similar to the following, is RESTful:

   http://example.org/staff#mary
   http://example.org/staff#bob
   http://example.org/staff#bill
   == PUT http://example.org/staff

But updating an RDF document, for the same company, containing the same 
descriptions, of the same three people, identified by the same three 
URIs, is somehow un-RESTful:

   http://example.org/staff#mary
   http://example.org/staff#bob
   http://example.org/staff#bill
   == PUT http://example.org/staff

Or are you saying that updating a description of one person, 
(supposedly) identified by the URI http://example.org/people/sue, is 
RESTful:

  PUT http://example.org/people/sue

but updating a description of one person, identified by the URI 
http://example.org/people/sue#me, is un-RESTful:

  PUT http://example.org/people/sue

ps: I use fragments, and update descriptions RESTfully, never ever had a 
problem yet.

Regards,

Nathan

Bradley Allen wrote:
> The assumption then would be that each representation would in the
> limit have a corresponding fragment URI. Correct?
> 
> Bradley P. Allen
> http://bradleypallen.org
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> exactly the same way, you GET,PUT,POST,PATCH,DELETE descriptions..
>>
>>  PUT /resource1
>>
>> unless of course you mean, if I have 100,000 concepts described by a single
>> representation, how do I update it RESTfully, in which case the answer is
>> clearly, don't put 100,000 concepts in a single representation.
>>
>> as in, do things exactly the same way you do now, whatever works for you -
>> using a fragment has no bearing on anything REST-related, unless as I say,
>> you decide it's a good idea to drop a full db/store in to one representation
>> (which I'd suggest isn't a good idea!)
>>
>> ps: PATCH isn't the best idea unless you've got some good skolemization
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>> Bradley Allen wrote:
>>> Nathan- I guess I'm not being clear about my problem. How do you get a
>>> REST API to work with fragment URIs? - BPA
>>>
>>> Bradley P. Allen
>>> http://bradleypallen.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>>>> Bradley Allen wrote:
>>>>> Nathan- I think you are overly discounting scalability problems with
>>>>> fragment URIs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the use cases I am dealing with in moving linked data into
>>>>> production at Elsevier entail SKOS concept schemes with concepts
>>>>> numbering in the 100,000's to millions, which will be constantly under
>>>>> curation, preferably using REST APIs that allow POSTs and PUTs to
>>>>> create and update individual concepts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you articulate a reasonable way in which that can be accomplished
>>>>> using fragment URIs? - regards, BPA
>>>> /resource1
>>>> /resource2
>>>> /resource3
>>>>
>>>> /resource1#1
>>>> /resource2#2
>>>> /resource3#3
>>>>
>>>> with the additional benefit that you can do
>>>>
>>>> /resourcea#1
>>>> /resourcea#2
>>>> /resourceb#1
>>>> /resourceb#2
>>>>
>>>> as in, exactly the same way, but with *more* options.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 22:01:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:07 UTC