- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 05:15:32 -0400
- To: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Cc: Michel_Dumontier <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>, Benjamin Good <goodb@interchange.ubc.ca>, Natalia Villanueva Rosales <naty.vr@gmail.com>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Rees Jonathan <jar@mumble.net>, Mark Wilkinson <markw@illuminae.com>
On Jul 11, 2007, at 4:11 AM, Eric Jain wrote: > 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? No. > > >> 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. Do you know about the VARY http header? http://www.w3.org/Protocols/ rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html section 14.44 I think it is very useful for caches, and quite evil for semantic web applications. > 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)? The worry is that if the redirected-to URLs are not widely publicized as well as what they are intended to denote, then people will use the obvious URL, and in the process make fuzzy and uninterpretable statements (at least as far as the stupid software agents that will be using them are concerned). -Alan
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 09:15:45 UTC