W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Re: [Recipes] roadmap to the next draft

From: Diego Berrueta <diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:15:27 +0100
To: SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1205774127.10542.13.camel@duncan.fundacionctic.org>

Find below my input for the upcoming discussion on these topics:

El mar, 11-03-2008 a las 15:34 +0100, Diego Berrueta escribió: 
> 3) Some remarks by TimBL re: the "Cool URIs" are also relevant to the
> recipes. In particular:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sweo-ig/2008Feb/0031.html
>   [[Major technical question about the implementation of 303. I know
> that dbpedia does it the way described, but there are a lot of good
> reasons to do it by a 303 to a generic URI for the document, which then
> itself does a conneg to RDF and HTML. 
>   * It is no more round trips than the dbpedia way
>   * It gives the client a URI to bookmark which is generic. This is
> important:
>        * It allows the user with an RDF-capable client to bookmark the
> document, and mail it to another user (or another device) which then
> dereferences it and gets the HTML view. This use of generic resources is
> important.
>        * It provides the server with the ability to add representation
> in new languages in the future.
>        * It is standard conneg and so probably more supported on servers
>     Just because client started with the URI of a thing, it doesn't mean
> that the document involved is not a first class document on the WWW.
> Best practices for this document apply. One of these is the use of
> Generic Resources. (See for example
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Generic.html and the new ontology ) ]]

While I fully agree with Tim's proposal, I also think that this will add
some complexity to some Recipes. Currently, we implement content
negotiation by means of rewrite rules. As far as I know, to implement
Recipe 5 according to Tim's proposal we have to use a different method,
such as Apache TypeMaps, which are difficult to set up.

>   [[ The 303 to an encoded SPARQL endpoint is IMHO clumsy and a proxied
> normal URI would be better. In future, we may have ways of associating
> whole URI subtrees with a SPARQL server, but we don't yet. ]]

This comment concerns the second implementation pattern of our Recipe 6.
As before, I agree with Tim's point, although in my opinion, our current
solution is easier to deploy than a script that acts as a proxy.

>   The following comment refers to a paragraph from Cool URIs that is
> exactly the same in the Recipes (in Section 4.3. Choosing between 303
> and Hash):
>  [[ "Note also, that both 303 and Hash can be combined, allowing to
> spread a large dataset into multiple parts and have an identifier for a
> non-document resource. An example for a combination of 303 and Hash is:
> http://www.example.com/bob#thisBob, the person with a combined URI."
> This is strange. Where is the 303 in this? This (bob#this) is an
> important way of generating URIs, and deserves a section (insert new
> 4.3) of its own. For when databases are exposed for example, or other
> virtual RDF linked data spaces generated from underlying systems. ]]

Please forget this comment. It is not relevant to the Recipes, and there
is no coincidence in the text between the Cool URIs and the Recipes. I
made a stupid mistake, sorry :/


Diego Berrueta
R&D Department  -  CTIC Foundation
E-mail: diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org
Phone: +34 984 29 12 12
Parque Científico Tecnológico Gijón-Asturias-Spain
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 16:16:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:50 UTC