W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Call for proposals to amend the "httpRange-14 resolution"

From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:54:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGnGFMKR3cGZzb_mXGxr3qbi7U9yVUXW1kCwjQ6cDfSSg1S6kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bannister <isoma@jellybaby.net>
Cc: SWIG Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Tim Bannister <isoma@jellybaby.net> wrote:

> In my view, if a GET for a URI returns content then it is a web document (or information resource, if you prefer). Using 204 and Link: just fits in better with how I understand the web.

Just to be clear, *which* web document or IR? That is, how do you feel
about the Flickr and Jamendo cases, where the URI is used to refer to
an IR described by the content retrieved using GET, but is not similar
to the content retrieved using GET? I've heard both views now, some
people insisting Flickr/Jamendo is best practice and any URI used in
RDF should always yield a description, while others say that if the
URI is supposed to mean what's described then the description has to
be embedded in what's described, i.e. you always GET something that's
the same as, or similar to (an "instance of") what's named by the URI
and the Flickr/Jamendo cases need to be fixed.

I wonder if there is such divergence of opinion on this question that
retrieval-enabled hashless URIs should just be completely deprecated
in RDF.

Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 16:54:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:34 UTC