- From: Seaborne, Andy <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:22:33 -0000
- To: "'karger@theory.lcs.mit.edu'" <karger@theory.lcs.mit.edu>, matsakis@mit.edu
- Cc: stefano@apache.org, www-rdf-dspace@w3.org
-------- Original Message -------- > From: David R. Karger <mailto:karger@theory.lcs.mit.edu> > Date: 4 December 2003 19:13 > > I wouldn't restrict "gettability" to things with bits. And even if > the thing is bits, I wouldn't _require_ that GETs return those bits. > I would be satisfied if all gettable URLs provided _some useful_ > information about the named object, without worrying whether it is > complete. I agree - GET returns a representation of a web resource. It is not contracted to return a copy of the resource (the resouirce need not be bits). A "representation" is stronger than saying "some useful information" as it is assumed to be useful as the resource in the web context. In RDF, a statement <url> :hasSize "2056 bytes" . can not be applied to a person. Andy > > X-Original-To: www-rdf-dspace@frink.w3.org > Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:16:40 -0500 (EST) > From: Nick Matsakis <matsakis@mit.edu> > X-X-Sender: matsakis@artoo.ai.mit.edu > Cc: SIMILE public list <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org> > X-Archived-At: > > > > http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.OSX.4.56.0312011214060.5893@artoo.ai.mit.edu > X-Mailing-List: <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org> archive/latest/832 X-Loop: > www-rdf-dspace@w3.org X-LocalTest: Local Origin > > > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > > If I got to vote, I would vote +1 for "getable" URIs because I > think > that they don't add complexity, they are consistent with the > general > XML movement, and they are potentially more valuable in > the future. > > If I got to vote, I would say 'getable' URIs should be assigned to > things that can be expressed as bits, or things that are elements of > RDF schemas (e.g. if you come across something with an RDF type you > don't recognize, it would be nice if there was a schema saying > something that type at a conveniently retrivable URL). > > I think things that don't meet those requirements should get > ungetable URIs. > > Nick
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 09:23:40 UTC