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

Hi David, I primarily wanted to express a disagreement, for the reasons i
put forward, and along the lines of reasoning provided in
http://blog.iandavis.com/2010/11/04/is-303-really-necessary/

m.

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:52 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
>


-- 
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