- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:11:37 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, "ext Dirk-Willem van Gulik" <dirkx@asemantics.com>, David Powell <djpowell@djpowell.net>
> > Architecturally, you seem to be advocating making a whole bunch of
> > very interesting data not addressable by URIs. Seems like a step
> > backwards.
>
> You have misunderstood me. I'm not advocating not denoting descriptions
> with distinct URIs. The Nokia implementation provides a URI for every
> description.
How, via a Location header on the response to MGET? And that
Location can be accessed via GET to get the same content?
That seems fine.
> > I think the extra round-trip is worth the cost,
>
> You'll have to back that up with some motivating arguments.
It's a question of comparison of costs. Which makes me realize
there's something I don't understand about MGET: how is my software
supposed to know whether to use MGET? Is it supposed to try MGET
first, see the "501 Method Not Implemented", and then fall back to
GET? So there's an extra round-trip for everything *not* served by
MGET?
Also, is it possible to make a typical Hosting service Apache user
account answer MGET? Does it at least get through to CGI?
[I don't see these questions answered on the URIQA page. Sorry if I
missed them.]
-- sandro
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 08:11:13 UTC