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

Re: A(nother) Guide to Publishing Linked Data Without Redirects

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:50:36 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikmg=+AUgjHLf-88q-6Jzd7=ZXZ2gsj-QDA1Xd+@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:15 PM, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've collected my thoughts on The Great 303 Debate of 2010 (as it will be remembered) at:
>  http://prototypo.blogspot.com/2010/11/another-guide-to-publishing-linked-data.html
> Briefly, I propose a new HTTP status code (210 Description Found) to disambiguate between generic information resources and the special class of information resources that provide metadata descriptions about URIs addressed.
> My proposal is basically the same as posted earlier to this list, but significantly updated to include a mechanism to allow for the publication of Linked Data using a new HTTP status code on Web hosting services.  Several poorly thought out corner cases were also dealt with.

I don't this solution cuts it or solves the problem to the extent that
Ian Davis was proposing. To recap my opinion, the *entire* problem
from many publisher's perpsectives is the use of status codes at all -
whether it's 303 or 210 doesn't really matter. Most people, they will
just want to publish their linked data in a directory without having
to worry about status codes. So, de facto, the only status code that
will matter is 200.

The question is how to build Linked Data on top of *only* HTTP 200 -
the case where the data publisher either cannot alter their server
set-up (.htaccess) files or does not care to.

> I look forward to feedback from the community.  However, if you are about to say something like, "the Web is just fine as it is", then I will have little patience.  We invent the Web as we go and need not be artificially constrained.  The Semantic Web is still young enough to be done right (or "more right", or maybe "somewhat right").
> Regards,
> Dave
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 00:51:10 UTC

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