- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:02:21 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Mar 18, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 19:22 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>
>> Is g-snap->g-text is just a function of the content type?
>
> Well, probably, for our purposes, I think so.
>
> There's a trivial case where it's not: the arbitrary non-semantic
> variability in serialization, eg whitespace. So, some notion of
> equivalence class of g-texts may be important.
Can't we simply *define* g-texts to be equivalent under such trivial variations? It is our notion, after all.
Pat
>
> There's a related problem I don't know if we can or should address,
> which is how to deal with websites which use cookies or other
> information (IP address, browser sniffing, etc) to customize content.
>
> Does AWWW deal with these at all? Not that I recall.
>
> For an RDF example, I could make it so http://hawke.org/ip returns
> something like
>
> { <> eg;currentClientIP "128.113.1.1" }
>
> ... but returning your actual IP address. Given the right cloudhosting
> infrastructure, I could meaningfully, and perhaps usefully, return two
> different non-equivalent g-texts (ie g-texts for different g-snaps), at
> the exactly same moment in time.
>
> So, I think the model of web addresses identifying g-box which contains
> one g-snap at any point in time is as good as REST, and probably good
> enough, but still not perfect.
>
> -- Sandro
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Sunday, 20 March 2011 00:02:58 UTC