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

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 22:47:26 +0100
To: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20101126214726.GX54400@styx.org>
* [2010-11-26 15:15:42 +0100] Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net> écrit:
]
] I wrote a note as an attempt to clarify a bit the terms Resource, 
] Information Resource and Document and their relations (from my point of 
] view). Maybe this helps to figure out the bits of the current confusion. 

So taking a cue from this thread, I've implemented something that I
think is in line with the original suggestion for a new dataset that
I'm working on. If you request, e.g.

    http://bnb.bibliographica.org/entry/GB8102507

with an Accept header indicating an interest in RDF data, you will get
a 200 response with a Content-Location header indicating that what is
returned is actually the GB8102507.rdf document. It seems to me that
this is enough information that a client needn't be confused between
the document and the book, "A good man in Africa". There is
foaf:primaryTopic linkage in the document that should also adequately
explain the state of affairs.

However it seems that some clients are confused -- tabulator for
instance as was pointed out in irc the other day.

My question is, should I change the behaviour to the standard 303
redirect or leave it as a stake in the ground saying that this is a
reasonable arrangement?

Cheers,
-w

-- 
William Waites
http://eris.okfn.org/ww/foaf#i
9C7E F636 52F6 1004 E40A  E565 98E3 BBF3 8320 7664
Received on Friday, 26 November 2010 21:47:57 UTC

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