W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > September 2005

RE: [VM] Telecon on Tuesday, 27 September

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:40:01 +0200
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>, "SW Best Practices" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GOEIKOOAMJONEFCANOKCGEPGGNAA.bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>

Preliminary questions for the telecon from someone who's been quite off the debate lately.
First I must say I've not yet recovered from the httpRange-14 resolution shock ... the
kind of answer which makes me feel like I do not understand the question any more. But
since everybody seems to have to live with that from now on, is a vocabulary manager
supposed to master all subtleties of http protocol, GET, response code, redirect and the
like necessary to understand this resolution?

>From the viewpoint of one who does not care about process details, does Alistair's
proposal means something different from the following?

When I put in my browser
I will get what I currently get at
instead of the current page of RDF code where the ressource is somewhere formally defined

In this case, what is the difference with Published Subjects, e.g.
which retrieves an human-readable resource, instead of the formal definition contained
somewhere in e.g.

which is formally defined in

Sorry if this sounds too much naive, or missing the point altogether.


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]
> De la part de Dan Brickley
> Envoyé : mardi 27 septembre 2005 13:54
> À : Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Cc : Thomas Baker; SW Best Practices; public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Objet : Re: [VM] Telecon on Tuesday, 27 September
> Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> >Hi Tom, all,
> >
> >Ahead of telecon today, here's a short note re intentions for SKOS Core URI
> dereferencing.
> >
> >Currently SKOS Core does the following...
> >
> >All property & class URIs follow the pattern:
> >
> >http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#localName
> >
> >A GET against the URI http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core returns a message
> with 'Content-type: application/rdf+xml' (irrespective of what content type(s)
> the client asked for) and response code 200.
> >
> >To bring into line with FOAF & DCMI, I would like to propose a change to this
> dereferencing policy.  I propose the following:
> >
> >1. A GET against http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core with 'Accept:
> application/rdf+xml' redirects (via response code 303) to the latest snapshot
> of the SKOS Core RDF description (currently
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/history/2005-03-31).
> >
> >(This ensures that provenance of RDF statements about SKOS Core classes &
> props is always a historical (date-stamped) snapshot, allowing run-time
> distinction between 'versions'.)
> >
> >2. A GET against http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core with an accept field that
> is not 'application/rdf+xml' redirects (via response code 303) to the latest
> version of the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-spec/)
> >
> >(This ensures that a click on the URI of a SKOS Core prop or class in a
> browser will take you to the right bit of the spec.)
> >
> >How's that look?
> >
> >
> ...and gets against URIs of specific terms?
> Dan
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2005 12:45:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:12 UTC