- From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@asemantics.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:18:45 +0100
- To: David Powell <djpowell@djpowell.net>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Mar 10, 2004, at 9:52 AM, David Powell wrote: >>> 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 Ok - so you still need some code in the agents. > 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. .... > 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. If you assume that - and given the above 1:1; would it not be simpler to simply postulate an extra header: Characteristics-Location: http://www.example.com/ex.rdf in the reply of any GET ? In particular that of the GET of http://www.example.com/ex. And making sure you -also- get it when a cheaper HEAD is done ? Or does that not accomplish all you want ? Dw
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 04:18:45 UTC