Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

James,

On 24 Mar 2012, at 00:38, James Leigh wrote:
> 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>

Yes, absolutely. Interestingly, if someone does publish something documents like that they can easily ensure that the document is interpreted as an information resource by adding a describedby link (which does have built-in semantics in RDFa 1.1):

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<base href="http://example.org/me"/>
<link rel="stylesheet" resource="style.css"/>
<link rel="describedby" resource=""/>
<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.

How is "let it disregard the statement 'this is an information resource'" is the same as "don't infer that it's an information resource". I don't see how it makes sense to infer something that you later disregard?

> 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.


Can I just cast that into the language used by the rest of the proposal? What about:

        when documentation is served with a 200 response from a probe
        URI and does not contain a 'describedby' statement, some agents 
        (including the publisher) might use it to identify the documentation
        and others a non-information resource. Publishers still need to 
        provide support for two distinct URIs if they want to enable more
        consistent use of the URI.

How does that sound?

Thanks,

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com

Received on Saturday, 24 March 2012 08:11:25 UTC