- From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:19:54 -0400
- To: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de> wrote: > > Hello Jonathan, > > so let the question be "did I GET what the URI denotes" and let httprange14 > be 200 -> yes, 303 -> no. Basically yes, although you have to be careful preserve the generic/specific (or resource/representation) distinction somehow, or else people will say that you don't know what you're talking about. If you always get the same representation from a URI, the distinction goes away, but in practice you have content negotiation, change over time, banner ads, login specific customizations, etc. that make life more difficult. The only way I've found to make sense of this complexity is what I wrote up in my "Generic resources and web metadata" note, which claims that what people unconsciously intend is usually universal quantification. If you need to be really precise about what you say about documents (transclusion, scripts, etc.) then using 200 URIs in RDF without further explanation is probably not a great idea; you'd want some kind of vocabulary that allowed you to say precisely what you mean. > 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. That's another question, but it is rarely asked without also wondering just what the content is, since the content is going to determine whether the annotations are true or not. So I would focus on the content, and then annotatability will sort itself out. > Both these questions may not be answered from a 200 statuscode in the future. If consensus is built around non-HR14a uses of 200, yes. You'd have to look elsewhere for additional clues, e.g. the headers or content. > Is all of this right ? Close enough. Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 15:20:29 UTC