Re: Explaining the benefits of http-range14 (was Re: [HTTP-range-14] Hyperthing: Semantic Web URI Validator (303, 301, 302, 307 and hash URIs) )

Hi Leigh,

On 21/10/2011 08:04, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for the response, there's some good examples in there. I'm glad
> that this thread is bearing fruit :)
>
> I had a question about one aspect, please excuse the clipping:

Clipping is the secret to focused email discussions :)

> On 20 October 2011 10:34, Dave Reynolds<dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> ...
>> If you have two resources and later on it turns out you only needed one,
>> no big deal just declare their equivalence. If you have one resource
>> where later on it turns out you needed two then you are stuffed.
>
> Ed referred to "refactoring". So I'm curious about refactoring from a
> single URI to two. Are developers necessarily stuffed, if they start
> with one and later need two?
>
> For example, what if I later changed the way I'm serving data to add a
> Content-Location header (something that Ian has raised in the past,
> and Michael has mentioned again recently) which points to the source
> of the data being returned.
>
> Within the returned data I can include statements about the document
> at that URI referred to in the Content-Location header.
>
> Doesn't that kind of refactoring help?

Helps yes, but I don't think it solves everything.

Suppose you have been using http://example.com/lovelypictureofm31 to 
denote M31. Some data consumers use your URI to link their data on M31 
to it. Some other consumers started linking to it in HTML as an IR 
(because they like the picture and the accompanying information, even 
though they don't care about the RDF). Now you have two groups of users 
treating the URI in different ways. This probably doesn't matter right 
now but if you decide later on you need to separate them then you can't 
introduce a new URI (whether via 303 or content-location header) without 
breaking one or other use. Not the end of the world but it's not a 
refactoring if the test cases break :)

Does that make sense?

Dave

Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 07:48:06 UTC