- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 19:10:22 +0800
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, systemsbiology <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Jul 31, 2006, at 11:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > > > On Jul 25, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Phillip Lord wrote: >> But if the file you are referencing is, say 5Tb, then it doesn't work >> in a browser at all. With LSID's on the other hand, you may get >> back a >> choice of methods to access the data, including one which can cope >> with 5Tb of data. > > Could this specific issue be handled in the http protocol? Could > there be a new response code that in effect says: "Status 99999999999: Status 303 "This is not what you asked for but see stuff about it" is close. It redirects to the metadata, so requires a round trip. I would start testing with that. 303 is also used for relating an abstract RDF object to a document with information about it. One could of course create a new one which had a copy of the information inline as you suggest. In the metadata you send, assuming you use RDF, you can use all kinds of vocabularies, an it is very extensible. We need some work on service description for the tabulator, when there is a lot of data, to point to SPARQL. So if you wanted to try it out on some big life sciences datasets, the tabulator would be a suitable test client. > The information resource you have requested is too #&%^ big and the > provider has decided that you need to use one of the following > access methods to get at it", followed by a list of protocols in a > manner similar to what lsid provides? > > There are a couple of related codes already (101, 413), but neither > is exactly what is desired it seems. > > -Alan > > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2006 11:10:36 UTC