- From: Jonathan Rees <jonathan.rees@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:57:34 -0400
- To: "Mark Wilkinson" <markw@illuminae.com>
- Cc: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Michel_Dumontier <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "Benjamin Good" <goodb@interchange.ubc.ca>, "Natalia Villanueva Rosales" <naty.vr@gmail.com>
On 7/11/07, Mark Wilkinson <markw@illuminae.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:34:10 -0700, Alan Ruttenberg > <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The cost of using an http identifier, and providing a 303 and a pointer > > to more information, instead of using an LSID, seems a small cost to > > satisfy this community. > > > Please correct me if I am wrong - I just re-read the spec for 303 and I > believe I am interpreting it properly... though I may not be! The TAG has the same worry as me, that a 200 response will be *taken* to mean that the resource is an IR, when it isn't. So the TAG says please don't give a 200 in that case, return anything else instead. They came up with 303 as the most likely something else. I agree that this is not part of the HTTP spec. It is merely a recommendation intended to teach the difference between an IR and a non-IR. (citation: httpRange-14) This is not elegant, and not very well-defined or reliable, but it is better than nothing. not info resource --> not 200 --> how about 303 > What > worries me about the 303 solution (other than that we are not using it for > it's primary purpose [1]) is that the redirection can only be to a > *single* resource, specified in the Location header. If this is an important functionality then it can be provided in a variety of ways - a mere matter of programming. LSID resolver happens to be the only way that comes ready made. But the functionality doesn't need to be tied to the use of LSIDs. > As I've said before, I think that LSIDs solve a *very specific subset* of > problems that don't seem to be raised very often in the discussions on > this list because they aren't "typical" situations... at the moment! I'm willing to believe this. I think I'm close to having a short list of the features that LSID users like, and I think we can reproduce most or all of them inside the http: URI scheme. But I would really like to hear from you and other LSID users which features they find essential. Ability to get metadata (assuming you have a resolver) is one good feature, ability to spot unchanging "pieces of data" is another, and you've given another above. The answers can be brief, since the rationales have already been presented. I would also like to see an LSID HOWTO for consumers of LSIDs. Perhaps this exists already. But right now, if I get an LSID in some email, I haven't a clue how to track down an LSID resolver that knows about it (although via google I learned that sourceforge might be a good place to start).
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2007 10:57:38 UTC