- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:52:53 -0500
- To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Cc: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Tim Bannister <isoma@jellybaby.net>, SWIG Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
But just to be clear . . . Michel, are you saying that you interpret the intent of the httpRange-14 resolution differently than how Pat, Jonathan and I have described? Or are you saying that you *disagree* with it, for the reasons that you explained? I always assumed the latter. David On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 11:29 -0500, Jonathan A Rees wrote: > 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 > > > > > -- David Booth, Ph.D. http://dbooth.org/ Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 16:53:18 UTC