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: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:29:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGnGFMLE34ApY+0AB=ALg-YOBsW7+wrujGP5xtBzGsR9mbDJJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Tim Bannister <isoma@jellybaby.net>, SWIG Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Many people share Michel's view, which is based on a literal reading
of the resolution, not on what Pat, David, I, and many others discern
to have been the *intent* of the resolution. If the intent had been
expressed then retrieval *would* have logically consequential
semantics along the lines of what I've laid out in
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/latest/, and the resolution would
have been useful for inference (inferences that many people do all the
time without any particular justification). There is no ambiguity in
what the resolution *said*; the difficulty is that some people like
Michel have with some justification refused to read between the lines,
while others have considered the intent to be a no-brainer.

There is nothing I can say to argue with Michel, based on anything
that is written down in a credible location. As Pat says, this is "an
incredible example of a fumbled ball" and it may be too late to repair
the damage.

Michel, you might want to look at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Mar/0010.html which
essentially agrees with you.

Jonathan

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Michel Dumontier
<michel.dumontier@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 16:29:43 UTC

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