- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:55:49 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 11/19/10 5:57 PM, Nathan wrote: > Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> On 11/19/10 4:55 PM, David Booth wrote: >>> On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 07:26 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>> [ . . . ] >>>> To conclude, I am saying: >>>> >>>> 1. No new HTTP response codes >>>> 2. Web Servers continue to return 200 OK for Document URLs >>>> 3. Linked Data Servers have option handle Name or Address >>>> disambiguation using 303 redirection for slash URIs >>>> 4. Linked Data Servers have option to be like Web Servers i.e. do no >>>> Name or Address disambiguation leaving Linked Data aware user agents >>>> to understand the content of Description Documents >>>> 5. Linked Data aware User Agents handle Name or Address >>>> disambiguation. >>>> >>>> IMHO: when the dust settles, this is what it boils down to. On our >>>> side, we're done re. 1-5 across our Linked Data server and client >>>> functionality, as delivered by our products :-) >>>> >>> I think the above reflects reality, regardless of what is recommended, >>> because: >>> >>> - some Linked Data Servers *will* serve RDF with 200 response >>> codes via >>> slash URIs, regardless of what is recommended; >>> >>> - some User Agents *will* still try to use that data; >>> >>> - those User Agents may or may not care about the ambiguity >>> between the >>> toucan and its web page; >>> >>> - those that do care will use whatever heuristics they have to >>> disambiguate, and the heuristic of ignoring the 200 response code is >>> very pragmatic. >>> >> David, >> >> Great! We're going to point back to this post repeatedly in the >> future :-) > > I truly hope not, recognizing that some people *will* do whatever the > hell they please, doesn't make what they're doing a good idea, or > something that should be accepted as best / standard practise. I am not implying that :-) I am trying to say that 1-5 represent the landscape, and solutions simply operate within that reality. Next time these matters arise we can save time returning to 1-5. > > As David mentioned earlier, having two ways to do things is already > bad enough (hash/303) without introducing a third. There will always be many ways to skin a rat, Linked Data can't stop that reality. > There's already been half a decade of problems/ambiguity/nuisance > because of the httpRange-14 resolution, ranging from technical to > community and via conceptual, why on earth would we want to compound > that by returning to the messy state that prompted the range-14 issue > in the first place? I don't see how I am advocating that. There are no mandates in 1-5, again that outlines how things are. Server, Servers and User Agents, or User Agents can make decisions. > > Fact is, the current reality is primarily due to the fact there is so > much confusion with no single clear message coming through, and until > that happens the future reality is only likely to get messier. It won't get any messier since 1-5 simply implies that there isn't anything to change re. HTTP response codes. Developers should make choices and live with the consequences, as they do every day :-) > > Best, > > Nathan > > -- 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, 20 November 2010 01:56:21 UTC