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

Indeed. I have always maintained that 303 is wholly unnecessary (and much
more complicated than it ever needed to be), simply *because* it confers no
explicit semantics - which is the realm of description languages like
RDF/OWL.  Want to make the distinction between any identity (e.g. a
document and it's subject)? Make the statement in the document that a
retrieval provides.

Both:
http://semanticscience.org/resource/has-direct-part
http://semanticscience.org/resource/has-direct-part.rdf

are described in their respective payload (which is the same as a matter of
convenience in my implementation)

m.

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:47 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 16:08 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > That sounds like it is consistent with a 303 response but not to a
> > 200-x, according to what http-range-14 *ought* to have said. Which
> > was, of course, that a 200-x response means that the URI denotes *the
> > IR that emitted the response*, not just some IR or other. (What an
> > incredible example of a fumbled ball.)
>
> It's true that the language of the httpRange-14 resolution[1] is
> ambiguous in that regard.  But did anybody actually interpret it in any
> other way?  I always thought that in cases like Flickr and Jamendo they
> did not misinterpret the httpRange-14 resolution, they just ignored it
> or were unaware of it.  Certainly folks like Ian Davis are well aware of
> the httpRange-14 rule, but have suggested that the rule could be ignored
> or modified in the case where the response carries an RDF document:
> http://blog.iandavis.com/2010/11/04/is-303-really-necessary/
>
> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039
>
>
> --
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
>
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
>
>
>


-- 
Michel Dumontier
Associate Professor of Bioinformatics, Carleton University
Visiting Associate Professor, Stanford University
Chair, W3C Semantic Web for Health Care and the Life Sciences Interest Group
http://dumontierlab.com