- From: David Powell <djpowell@djpowell.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:52:50 +0000
- To: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@asemantics.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hello Dirk-Willem, Wednesday, March 10, 2004, 7:56:38 AM, dirkx@asemantics.com wrote in mid:757E8FAE-7268-11D8-B93F-000A95CDA38A@asemantics.com : > ... >> How about if it was MANDATORY for responses to MGET to have a > s/MGET/GET/ perhaps ? No, I meant MGET here. I was proposing that you could continue to get the resource using GET http://www.example.com/ex , and that you could get the resources metadata using MGET http://www.example.com/ex , but that the MGET would also return a Content-Location header pointing to http://www.example.com/ex.rdf or http://sw.example.com/metadata.cgi?url=http:%2f%2fwww.example.com%2fex which could then be used by GET requests for agents that didn't support MGET. This would help MGET data to still be part of the wider web. I'm not sure whether this would be a valid use of Content-Location, but a different header could be used for the same purpose if it was not. This still assumes a 1:1 relationship between data and metadata, but it makes getting metadata, and getting remain separate operations which could have independent access controls. > ... -- Dave
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 04:00:34 UTC