- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:50:58 +0200
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, "ext Dirk-Willem van Gulik" <dirkx@asemantics.com>, "ext Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, David Powell <djpowell@djpowell.net>
On Mar 11, 2004, at 15:41, Patrick Stickler wrote: > > On Mar 11, 2004, at 15:11, ext Sandro Hawke wrote: > >> >> >>>> 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. > > Yup. > In actuality, I'm using the Content-Location header to specify the URI of the description (entity) being returned by the MGET request, which seems the correct header to use. The Location header, as I understand it, is particular to the resource denoted by the request URI (i.e. an alias, owl:sameAs) rather than the entity (representation/description of the resource) being returned. ??? Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 06:51:36 UTC