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

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

From: Lars Heuer <heuer@semagia.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:51:56 +0100
Message-ID: <631891528.20101112175156@semagia.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Kingsley,

>> An example:
>> <http://www.amazon.com/Identity-Crisis-Brad-Meltzer/dp/1401204589/>
>> returns 200 with no machine-readable data (like RDFa).

> Methinks RDFa is machine readable. The machine simply needs to 
> understand RDFa. Thus, if the user agent is committed to RDFa, it should
> be able to interpret RDFa content; giving the content an option to 
> clarify matters re. whether an IRI is Name or Address.

Of course RDFa is machine readable. My example was HTML *without*

>> If I use the
>> identifier today, it has to be interpreted as "I talk about that
>> particular IRI (an HTML document)".

> No, that's only true if you interpret what HTTP is accurately relaying
> to you re. your quest for a Document, as the end of the matter.

> You to HTTP Server: GET me a Document at URL
> HTTP Server: Found it (200 OK) or look somewhere else (30X).

I guess you didn't understand the example. Maybe I didn't explain well
enough, though.

> Again, my response stands. That's the case re. Virtuoso. You are saying:
> I haven't experienced that. Hence my insistence re. Virtuoso.

A product cannot be the answer of the deeper problem.

Anyway, the problem of identifying subjects via IRIs is rather old
(see [1] for one example) and it seems that there is no appealing
solution yet (leaving Topic Maps aside for the moment)

[1] <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI>

Best regards,
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 16:49:46 UTC

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