Re: Archaic HTTP "From:" Header

Henry Story wrote:
> On 27 May 2013, at 14:29, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 27 May 2013 14:17, mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Register "webid" as a Link Relation Value and ese the LINK header as in
>> Link: <http://...." rel="webid">
>>
>> This will make sure you don't step on someone else's header, no-one will step our yours. This will also allow you to include it in the header and (when appropriate) include it within a message body.
>>
>> That could work so how about
> 
> The text below looks good, but the question is what is the relation between the content sent and the 
> WebID? A WebID is a URI denoting an Agent.
> 
>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/identity-respec.html
> 
> But what the rel=.... requires is what you need to define. "rel" stands
> for _relation_ .
> 
> You can use establised RDF relations such as
> 
>   dc:author
>   dc:contributor
>   foaf:maker
>   ....
> 
> Using any of those in the link header comes down to saying respectively
> 
> <> dc:author mywebid .
> <> dc:contributor mywebid .
> <> foaf:maker mywebid .
> 
> 
> Or you could use the existing relations in the registry
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml
> 
> In short I don't think that WebID is a relation. It is a subset of URIs.

Same thing. The set of all URIs which denote agents is created by 
looking at those uris which are related to some things by a relation 
which implies they are of that set.

{ ?x foaf:maker mywebid . } => { ?x a :Agent }

+1 for mike's suggestion of a relation. It works, it's extensible, it 
can be sub classed, and it doesn't encourage a plethora of additional 
headers which have no bearing on the protocol (http). This is what Link 
was made for, it works and there's no technical reason not to do it.

Received on Monday, 27 May 2013 14:11:16 UTC