- From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:34:29 +0200
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Monday 12. October 2009 18:45:33 Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > Ok. I was using the term proxy to tease out whether we were talking > about URI 'aliases' or service endpoints Tihihi! I'd say that was a successful tease :-) > In which case, I believe this settles the issue of whether this induces > good 'HTTP behavior', since presumably you can use all the verbs > (PUT/POST/GET/DELETE) uniformly on these alias URIs as though you were > using the IRI of the graph directly. In addition, conditional GETs would > work as expected. Indeed. My argument was that one cannot infer the "original" graph URI from the "proxy" URI due to the opacity axiom, which still holds true, I believe, but if we treat them as equivalent aliases, this becomes irrelevant. > "Kjetil Kjernsmo" wrote > > > So, it means it is a URI Alias. While that carries some negative > > connotation, perhaps we should just use that term "endpoint URI alias", > > or something...? > > Well (WRT the negative connotation of 'alias') - although Web arch > generally frowns on multiple URIs to identify the same resource it > doesn't forbid it, and it appears this use case is an exemplar of why > URI aliases are sometimes necessary. Yup. Cheers, Kjetil -- Kjetil Kjernsmo kjetil@kjernsmo.net http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 07:35:00 UTC