Re: non-derefencable http URIs and oa:SpecificResource quibble

Hi Bob,

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's my understanding that nothing presently accepted
> by IETF, nor anything in this draft, requires that an http URI must be
> dereferencable.


Nor anything currently in the HTTP specification, for that matter.

If I am wrong, I'd like to know why. By this I mean "Where in a
> specification document do I find the text that contradicts me?"
>

You're not wrong, as far as I know, ...


> If I'm right, I would hope to see the OA section on SpecificResources
> have the sentence
> "If the Specific Resource has an HTTP URI, then the exact segment of
> the Source resource that it identifies ..."
> be changed to
> "If the Specific Resource has a dereferencable HTTP URI, then the
> exact segment .... "


... however there's the principles of linked data to be kept in mind as
well.  Even though the specification of the HTTP URI requirements doesn't
mandate it, Linked Data layers on top of that to create additional
restrictions and assumptions, which is where the requirement for Specific
Resources comes from.

I'd be opposed to changing this, as then clients encountering an HTTP URI
for a specific resource would be required to attempt to dereference it in
order to determine if it was dereferencable.  The specification currently
short-circuits that request, as it will frequently result in failure, by
requiring that the URI be dereferencable if it's in the HTTP scheme and
providing an alternative for when it isn't.

Put another way, what's the advantage of allowing non-dereferencable HTTP
URIs for specific resources?

Thanks,

Rob