- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: 11 Jun 2001 18:04:54 +0200
- To: Sean "B." Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Sean, I admit I may be wrong about the fact that http: URIs identify documents. As a matter of fact, it just occured to me that an HTTP server could return me a "204 No content" code, which is a success (hence I know the URI is "valid"), provide meta-data about the resource in the HTTP header, hence the resource may be something else than a document. However... On 11 Jun 2001 16:21:09 +0100, Sean B. Palmer wrote: > What about http://example.com/# - is that a generic document? What > about http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title - is that a generic > document? I suggest that you dereference it, and once and for all blow > apart your notion that anything on an HTTP server is a document. The fact that they do not resolve does not mean, for me, that they are no document ! It may that the server is unreachable or to busy... how would I know ?? Answer: 204 code ! Which I don't think purl.org returns. > You just ask for a URL, you don't tell the server what should be there. I don't tell ! I only guessed the "http:"prefix tells me... But you got it, I changed my mind :) > Onto cases where URLs represent both a "namespace" and also return a > document. That document is simply a representation of a resource, not > the resource itself, so is there really any problem there? There is to me. I would say that a URI may resolve to different *instances* of the same resource. e.g. differing by their encoding format, language, version, etc... I don't take a description of a thing to be an instance of that thing (document about a namespace, picture of a person, map of a city) this is *not* a matter of encoding format IMHO. But OK, would http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/ return nothing with a 2xx code, I would admit it identifies the namespace unambiguously -- mark my words ;-) Pierre-Antoine
Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 12:03:44 UTC