Re: A(nother) Guide to Publishing Linked Data Without Redirects

In my view, making the relationship between a URI and a document dependent on 
the protocol interaction used to retrieve the document is fundamentally flawed. 
  As someone else said recently, many applications "black box" the HTTP 
interactions (I certainly try to do this), so depending on some detail of the 
protocol exchange is problematic for such apps.

E.g. It should be possible to interpret the relationship appropriately (i.e. 
usefully, and without material contradiction) if they are handed to one on a 
memory stick, or are accessed by an FTP transfer.

The use of '#' indirection is one way to achieve this.

Another is Larry Masinter's tdb: URI scheme proposal 


David Wood wrote:
> Hi all,
> Apologies for cross-posting, but I am curious what the membership of 
> this distribution thinks about the practical difficulties associated 
> with the use of 303 redirection and the problems explaining it to 
> non-SemWebbers.  At the risk of drawing others into an already active 
> debate on another list, your feedback would be welcome.
> Regards,
> Dave
> Begin forwarded message:
>> *From: *David Wood < 
>> <>>
>> *Date: *November 10, 2010 17:15:36 EST
>> *To: *Linked Data community < <>>
>> *Subject: **A(nother) Guide to Publishing Linked Data Without Redirects*
>> Hi all,
>> I've collected my thoughts on The Great 303 Debate of 2010 (as it will 
>> be remembered) at:
>> Briefly, I propose a new HTTP status code (210 Description Found) to 
>> disambiguate between generic information resources and the special 
>> class of information resources that provide metadata descriptions 
>> about URIs addressed.
>> My proposal is basically the same as posted earlier to this list, but 
>> significantly updated to include a mechanism to allow for the 
>> publication of Linked Data using a new HTTP status code on Web hosting 
>> services.  Several poorly thought out corner cases were also dealt with.
>> I look forward to feedback from the community.  However, if you are 
>> about to say something like, "the Web is just fine as it is", then I 
>> will have little patience.  We invent the Web as we go and need not be 
>> artificially constrained.  The Semantic Web is still young enough to 
>> be done right (or "more right", or maybe "somewhat right").
>> Regards,
>> Dave

Received on Monday, 15 November 2010 09:31:23 UTC