Re: httpRange-14 Adjunct: 302 is Valid for Non-Information Resources

On 5 Dec 2007, at 00:07, Ian Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 17:29 +0000, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> Yes. But the vast majority of HTTP URIs are for traditional web  
>> pages,
[...]
>
>> httpRange-14 axiomatically declares that for all those URIs, the
>> “naïve” interpretation is correct: They identify “the Google home
>> page”; “Richard's homepage”; “the TAG blog”; and so on. They do not
>> identify companies, people, and so on.
>
> Unfortunately not. It declares that you need to invoke a network
> operation which may tell you whether the URI denotes a document or  
> not.
> Those types of URIs can still denote things other than documents

Of course you need to invoke a network operation first. The point is  
that afterwards you know for sure that all those URIs identify  
documents, and they cannot identify companies etc.

>> Hence it becomes viable to use
>> RDF for saying things about web pages.
>
> RDF is viable without http range.

I did not dispute that, so what's the point of this assertion?

I said that RDF pre-httpRange-14 was not viable *for saying things  
about web pages*.

>> Thanks to that 303 thing, we know that it identifies a web
>> document, and a snapshot of it currently sits in my browser window.
>>
>
> We still don't have a clue what it denotes, just narrowed the range of
> things it could denote.

I was talking about a specific URI: http://inamidst.com/sbp/

If you see that it returns 200, and look at it in a browser, and still  
have no clue what it identifies, then sorry, I can't help you.

> You need some RDF to find out what it denotes,

Take off your RDF goggles. We are talking about web pages and common  
sense.

Richard



>
> but if you have that then knowing it's a document hardly seems  
> relevant
> - you can learn that from a single triple. Http range uses a lot of
> network mechanics to convey a single triple. Perhaps it would have  
> been
> more useful to have a header that meant "this is a document" because  
> we
> could have used that to say other things too.
>
>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>
> Ian
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 09:34:16 UTC