Re: URL +1, LSID -1

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> I don't feel comfortable with showing a minimalistic page with some 
>> weird acronyms when someone enters e.g. 
>> http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/P12345.
> 
> How is someone to know, then, that you mean that the name denotes a 
> class of proteins, rather than a page of html?

Does a temporary redirect imply owl:sameAs?


> I think content negotiation is a bad idea because it confuses the issue 
> of what the name identifies. It effectively allows the GET to return 
> many different things that *appear* to have the same name, because the 
> bit that differentiates it (the accept header) has no representation in 
> the rdf.
 >
> I think we should define, as a community, what sort of document we 
> expect the 303 to redirect to (RDF) and what the contents of that RDF 
> should be, e.g. minimally class, pointers to representations, where to 
> get more information (e.g. endpoints).
> 
> Remember, most of this kind of information will eventually live at 
> SPARQL endpoints. Providing this information is to enable 
> discovery/follow your nose navigation - which is inefficient, but polite.

I didn't like content negotiation, either, but for more practical reasons 
(it reduces my ability to cache expensive resources effectively), though 
that doesn't apply if the content negotiation is done prior to redirection.

What I don't quite follow is what the "logical" problem is with 
content-negotiated redirects, as you still have fixed URLs for the specific 
representations (albeit perhaps less pretty ones), and if you really want 
to make any statements about specific representations, do you really want 
to attach them to some redirectable URL (what's the benefit of that)?

Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 08:11:43 UTC