Re: NIR SIDETRACK Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

Hello Jonathan,

so let the question be "did I GET what the URI denotes" and let httprange14
be 200 -> yes, 303 -> no.

Let another question be "can this URI be used with document annotation
properties" (or: Is this URI an IR) ? From 200 a statuscode, I can infer that
the URI can be used with document annotation properties and use those
properties. I can also use those properties with some 303 URIs but not always.

Both these questions may not be answered from a 200 statuscode in the future.

Is all of this right ?

Regards,

Michael Brunnbauer


On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 09:02:04AM -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Tim,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:59:42PM -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> >> 12) Still people say "well, to know whether I use 200 or 303 I need to know if this sucker is an IR or NIR" when instead they should be saying "Well, am I going to serve the content of this sucker or information about it?".
> >
> > I think the question should be "does the response contain the content of it"
> > because I can serve both at once (<foaf:PersonalProfileDocument rdf:about="">).
> 
> Yes, this is the question - is the retrieved representation content (I
> used the word "instance" but it's not catching on), or description. It
> can be both.
> 
> > Is there a difference between this question and the IR question if we take
> > Dans definition of IR as 'Web-serializable networked entity' ?
> 
> There is a difference, since what is described could be an IR that
> does not have the description as content. A prime example is any DOI,
> e.g.
> 
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000462
> 
> (try doing conneg for RDF). The identified resource is an IR as you
> suggest, but the representation (after the 303 redirect) is not its
> content.
> 
> Another example (anti-httpRange-14) is
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/70365734@N00/6905069277/
> 
> The identified resource (according to the retrieved RDFa) is an IR,
> but the retrieved representation is not its content.
> 
> In other words, even if the identified resource is an IR (under any
> definition), the question remains of whether the retrieved
> representation is content or description (except in the case where it
> is both). The two dimensions are orthogonal.
> 
> Maybe I misunderstand your question.
> 
> This whole "information resource" thing needs to just go away. I can't
> believe how many people come back to it after the mistake has been
> pointed out so many times. Maybe the TAG or someone has to make a
> statement admitting that the way httpRange-14(a) was phrased was a big
> screwup, that the real issue is content vs. description, not a type
> distinction.
> 
> I think Jeni's proposal is to say that the Flickr URI is good
> practice, rather than deny it. My proposal is to say that the
> description-free situation is good practice, rather than just an
> undocumented common practice.
> 
> In a hybrid world where some URIs work one way (by description) and
> others work the other way (by ostention), the question for anyone
> encountering a hashless http: URI in RDF, is which of the two
> situations (or both) obtain. (Maybe there are some URIs that work
> neither way, or there is a gray area.) It would be nice if there were
> definite answers at least for some URIs.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> > Regards,
> >
> > Michael Brunnbauer
> >
> > --
> > ++  Michael Brunnbauer
> > ++  netEstate GmbH
> > ++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
> > ++  81379 München
> > ++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
> > ++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
> > ++  E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
> > ++  http://www.netestate.de/
> > ++
> > ++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
> > ++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
> > ++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
> > ++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
> >

-- 
++  Michael Brunnbauer
++  netEstate GmbH
++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++  81379 München
++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 
++  E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
++  http://www.netestate.de/
++
++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel

Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 14:38:01 UTC