Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

Hi Jeni,

Thanks for your response.

On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 21:42 +0000, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> The big thing that *is* different under this proposal is that if you have an HTML+RDFa 1.1 document like:
> 
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <html>
> <head>
> <base href="http://example.org/me"/>
> <link rel="stylesheet" resource="style.css"/>
> <title>Me</title>
> </head>
> <body typeof="foaf:Person">
> <h1 property="foaf:name">James</h1>
> </body>
> </html>
> 
> returned with a 200 response from http://example.org/me then the application knows:
> 
>   * <http://example.org/me> is a Person
>   * <http://example.org/me>'s name is "James"
> 
> and does not have a stray and inaccurate
> 
>   * <http://example.org/me> is an information resource
> 
> hanging around which was contrary to the publisher's intent.
> 

In the above example, the last statement is stray and inaccurate, but
that it is not always the case. Consider:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<base href="http://example.org/me"/>
<link rel="stylesheet" resource="style.css"/>
<title>Me</title>
</head>
<body typeof="foaf:Document">
<h1 property="dc:title">Me</h1>
</body>
</html>


> Anyway, I wonder how we might change the paragraph that you quoted to remove the implication that publishers can get away with one URI when they want to identify two things. Would this work better:
> 
>        where a URI is intended to identify a NIR but provides a 200
>        response, there remains no method of addressing the
>        documentation that is returned by that 200 response (to assert
>        its license, provenance etc); publishers still need to support
>        a separate URI if they want to make statements about the
>        documentation distinct from the NIR. An updated set of best 
>        practices for linked data publishers would need to spell out what 
>        publishers should do and how consumers should combine the 
>        information provided within the response with that found at the 
>        end of any ‘describedby’ links.
> 

Good suggestion, but I don't think we can make the decision for all
cases like this. I think we need to leave interpretation up to the
agent, who perhaps knows more about the publisher's intents.

If an agent is looking for foaf:Person, let it disregard the statement
"this is an information resource" (no disagreements here). However, if
an agent is looking specifically for information resources, let it use
the URL (w/200 response) as the identifier of an IR, regardless of what
it contains.

I would be more happy with something like this:

        When a URI is served with a 200 response, agents may use the URI
        to address the IR that is returned by that 200 response, or use
        the URI to address a NIR described in the response (if a
        description exists). Publishers still need to support two
        distinct URIs if they want agents to have a more consistent
        interpretation.

Thanks,
James

Received on Saturday, 24 March 2012 00:38:42 UTC