- From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@asemantics.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:45:50 +0100
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, "ext Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
On Mar 9, 2004, at 11:39 AM, Patrick Stickler wrote: > On Mar 09, 2004, at 12:31, ext Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: >> On Mar 9, 2004, at 11:21 AM, Patrick Stickler wrote: >>> On Mar 09, 2004, at 12:05, ext Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: >>>> On Mar 9, 2004, at 10:37 AM, Patrick Stickler wrote: >>>> >>>>> URIQA imposes *no* modifications to existing HTTP clients. All >>>>> enhancments are >>>>> >>>> I must be missing something fundamental. HOW does the client, who >>>> needs data >>>> -about- the URL, i.e. the RDF, fetch that data ? >> .. >>> If that client wanted a description of the resource denoted by the >>> URI http://example.com/foo, it would submit a request >>> >>> MGET /foo HTTP/1.1 >>> Host: example.com >>> >>> Note that the only difference is the method used, and specifying >>> the request method is part of the core HTTP client architecture. >> >> Ok -- so the client MUST be modified in that case - i.e. on needs >> to add code to do 'MGET' instead of 'GET' if the client wanted a >> description of the resource denoted by the URL. > > I think we are talking about different levels of "modification". > Sure - I just wanted to get things 'right' - as I mention in the summary document similar 'changes' which really amount to looking for a header or fishing out some URL for the other options. One of the big advantages of the MGET change is that there no change of semantics; totally orthogonal way of signalling that you want metadata while -everything- else is kept the same; just an extra 'if' and 'MGET' in your code which formulates the HTTP request next to the 'GET' you already have. Dw
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2004 05:47:52 UTC