- From: Ed Davies <edavies@nildram.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:17:00 +0100
- To: Marc de Graauw <marc@marcdegraauw.com>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
Marc de Graauw wrote: > Not quite. > > If > http://example.com/ontology/meter > http://example.com/ontology/kilogram > http://example.com/ontology/watt > all 303 to the same information resource, they still identify three > different resources, namely the meter, the kilogram and the Watt. Agreed. (Except, pedantically, that the unit of power is spelt "watt", not "Watt".) > What exactly the 303 points to isn't essential for using the URI to identify > a (non-information) resource, Also agreed. > likewise what the document a > <subjectIndicatorRef> points to contains isn't essential either. It may > contain sensible stuff, or nonsense, but this wouldn't change the fact that > http://example.com/ontology/meter is used as an identifier for the meter. OK, I agree with this now. I misinterpreted your original sentence: > So, tweaking the Topic Map definitions a bit, it would > be fair to say a 303 response means the dereferenced URI > is a subject indicator ... to mean that the destination of the 303 was the subject indicator but, on reflection, I see that doesn't make sense and you meant the URI which was being dereferenced, not the URI obtained by dereferencing. I'm far from convinced that subjectIndicatorRef is a helpful way to think about 303, though. 303 shouldn't be telling you anything you don't already know about the level of indirection of a URI (RDF only ever allows one level; topic maps, to the small extent I understand them, allow two different levels). Ed Davies.
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 16:17:08 UTC