- From: Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:26:44 +0000
- To: public-lod@w3.org
On 24/03/13 18:23, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 3/24/13 1:59 PM, Barry Norton wrote: >> On 24/03/13 17:52, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >>> On 24 Mar 2013, at 17:39, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Thus, if a client de-references the URI >>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Barack_Obama> and it gets a 200 OK >>>> from the server combined with >>>> <http://dbpedia.org/page/Barack_Obama> in the Content-Location >>>> response header, the client (user agent) can infer the following: >>>> >>>> 1. <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Barack_Obama> denotes the >>>> real-world entity 'Barack Obama' . >>> Why can a client make this inference? I can't see any basis for the >>> inference that the URI identifies a “real-world entity”. The >>> described interaction does not provide any information regarding the >>> nature of the identified resource, AFAICT. >>> >>> Best, >>> Richard >> >> Agreed. And I don't like the 'give a 200 and trust clients to spot >> the header' approach. I especially don't like that the header will >> become a 'we can add that later' academic ideal and we'll effectively >> lose the NIR/IR distinction altogether (if we already haven't). >> >> Barry >> >> >> > That's simply isn't the point. > > This is about incorporating more metadata into the Linked Data URI > disambiguation process i.e., interpret what the Content-Location value > delivers. The response header implies that the server is pointing you > to the location of a document associated with the request URI. > > From a Linked Data perspective, it simply means that we have another > heuristic for disambiguation. > > The goal is to have options, especially an option that kills the 303 > distraction with regards to hashless URIs. > > An optional heuristic is just that, an option. > > Aren't you fed up of 303 distractions re. Linked Data and hashless URIs? > I am. But half of the discussion is caused by having two different 'options'. A third doesn't solve that. Barry
Received on Sunday, 24 March 2013 18:27:06 UTC