Re: What if an URI also is a URL


On 7 Jun 2007, at 17:40, Stelios G. Sfakianakis wrote:

> On 7/6/2007 5:54 μμ, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> The answer is simple: If an HTTP GET on
>> returns a 200 status code and some HTML, then mophor#me is the  
>> section
>> of the HTML page marked by the #me anchor.
>> If the GET returns a 200 status code and some RDF, then mophor#me is
>> whatever the RDF states about it. So if there is a triple in the RDF
>> saying it is a person, then mophor#me is a person.
> What if the GET returns an HTML document with a #me anchor and a GRDDL
> transformation that when applied the result RDF graph states that  
> #me is
> a person?
> Is the answer "Don't do that" as you say in the following paragraph?

A good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is.

The paper trail starting at the URI spec never reaches GRDDL because  
it is not referenced in any of the relevant specs. So the correct  
interpretation according to the RFCs and the HTML spec is still that  
#me is a section of the document. Stating that #me is a person in the  
RDF creates an inconsistency. Clients following different approaches  
to establish an interpretation of the URI may end up with different  
interpretations, which is not in your best interest as a data  
publisher and namespace manager. So I would advice against this.

I think the impact is low if different fragments are used for the  
anchor and the person.


>> If the GET returns either RDF or HTML, depending on content  
>> negotiation,
>> then you're in trouble because <mophor#me> is now ambiguous and  
>> clients
>> are unable to consistently interpret the URI. So, as Sandro said,  
>> Don't
>> Do That, or use the magic 303 redirect.
> thanks,
> Stelios
> -- 
> Stelios G. Sfakianakis | Biomedical Informatics Laboratory
> Voice: +30-2810-391650 | Institute of Computer Science
> PGP Key ID: 0x5F30AAC2 | FORTH,

Received on Thursday, 7 June 2007 18:26:01 UTC