- From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:53:35 +0000
- To: "wangxiao@musc.edu" <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Cc: Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "sean@miscoranda.com" <sean@miscoranda.com>, "richard@cyganiak.de" <richard@cyganiak.de>
Fortunately, :-), http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource should never make it to the request line of an HTTP request and will have no associated response code. Though of course http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema might. Regards Stuart -- > -----Original Message----- > From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu] > Sent: 29 November 2007 16:27 > To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) > Cc: Tore Eriksson; www-tag@w3.org; sean@miscoranda.com; > richard@cyganiak.de > Subject: Re: httpRange-14: Consequences of redirection > > I don't think which HTTP response pattern/code is the core > issue. The core issue is if we should be allowed to use any > HTTP code to judge the nature of a resource. > > The fundemental assumption of RDF is that everything is an > instance of rdfs:Resource. If somehow, this fundamental > belief can be challenged, such as by checking if > "rdfs:Resource" returns a particular HTTP code, then the > entire RDF system itself is already put on a shaky ground. > > If we want to judge this sort of thing, it must be outside of > RDF but not within. The irony, however, is this - if we > don't care to and cannot judge if someone does it right or > wrong, then why bother? > > Xiaoshu -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 16:58:19 UTC