RE: checking "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" comments... would like more time

Susie et. al,

The TAG call starts at 13:00 Boston, 10:00 Pacific, 17:00 UK (or the chair will be missing :-)) and 18:00 Boston on Thursday 20th March 2008 and runs for 90mins.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2008&month=3&day=20&hour=17&min=0&sec=0&p1=43&p2=256&p3=136&p4=37

BR

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Susie M Stephens [mailto:STEPHENS_SUSIE_M@LILLY.COM]
> Sent: 18 March 2008 21:13
> To: Leo Sauermann
> Cc: Dan Connolly; Danny Ayers; Norman Walsh;
> public-sweo-ig@w3.org; Richard Cyganiak; www-tag@w3.org;
> Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Subject: RE: checking "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
> comments... would like more time
>
> The world clock indicates that there is currently a 5hr time
> difference between Boston and Berlin, so if the TAG call is
> at 11am in Boston it would be at 4pm in Berlin. You should
> verify this though...
>
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/
>
> Susie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>              "Williams, Stuart
>              (HP Labs,
>              Bristol)"
>           To
>              <skw@hp.com>              Leo Sauermann
>                                        <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
>              03/18/2008 12:05
>           cc
>              PM                        Richard Cyganiak
>                                        <richard@cyganiak.de>, Susie M
>                                        Stephens
>                                        <STEPHENS_SUSIE_M@LILLY.COM>,
>                                        "public-sweo-ig@w3.org"
>                                        <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>, Dan
>                                        Connolly
> <connolly@w3.org>, Danny
>                                        Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>,
>                                        Norman Walsh
>                                        <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>,
>                                        "www-tag@w3.org"
> <www-tag@w3.org>
>
>      Subject
>                                        RE: checking "Cool URIs for the
>                                        Semantic Web" comments... would
>                                        like more time
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [switched to www-tag since public-sweo-ig is already er... public]
>
> Hello Leo, Richard,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leo Sauermann [mailto:leo.sauermann@dfki.de]
> > Sent: 12 March 2008 09:45
> > To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> > Cc: Richard Cyganiak; Susie M Stephens; public-sweo-ig@w3.org; Dan
> > Connolly; Danny Ayers; Norman Walsh; tag@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: checking "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
> > comments... would like more time
>
> <snip/>
>
> > Richard and I have looked at the diagram and discussed
> about it, the
> > approach as depicted on above image [3] is confusing us, is
> seems to
> > be different from the photo at [2], and also to what is written in
> > http-range-14.
> >
> > In the *worst* way, I could intentionally mis-interpret [3] as the
> > following:
> > == worst case===
> > * URIthing identifying the thing
> > * URIgen identifying a forwarder uri
> > * URIrdf identifying a rdf document
> > * URIhtml identifying a html document
> >
> > On a GET to URIthing
> > it makes a  303 redirect to URIgen,
> > which will do another 303 (based on conneg) to either, URIrdf or
> > URIhtml.
> > == /worst case ==
> >
> > 3 http roundtrips - this is not what you had in mind!?
>
> No... that's not how conneg is supposed to work
>
> GET on {URIthing, Accept:=[RDF|HTML]} -> {303, Location:
> URIgen} GET on {URIgen, Accept:=[RDF|HTML]} -> {200,
> [RDFBits|HTMLBits], Content-Location:=[URIrdf | URIhtml]}
>
> Two round trips... as before.
>
> > I would guess that other readers may also mis-interpret the
> provided
> > graphic [3] and therefore would NOT use it as is in the document.
> >
> > My understanding of the decision was:
> > == we assumed ==
> > Assuming we start with graphic [4], the content-negotiation and 303
> > redirect is handled:
> > On a GET to URIthing
> > make a 303 redirect from URIthing to URIrdf or URIhtml based on
> > conneg, defaulting to "URIhtml" for browsers that do not
> pass RDF as
> > "accept"
> > == /we assumed==
> >
> > YES?
>
> We discussed this at the recent TAG F2F, whether 1) the
> accept header should influence a choice of redirection target
> (as shown in [4]), or whether 2) redirection should be to a
> generic resource and then conneg based on the accept header
> when performing a retrieval on that generic resource (note
> same number of round trips).
>
> I believe that we decided that the later (ie. 2) ) is a
> better pattern in the case where the RDF and HTML
> representations variant representations of the same
> resource(information) because it encodes the relation that
> URIrdf and URIhtml are variants of URIgen (if indeed they are).
>
> Of course 'the same' is tricky - and conceivably RDF and HTML
> representations could arise from different information
> sources with different provenance etc. in which case 1) is
> more correct and avoids encoding the variant relations.
>
> > Out of sheer curiosity, I wonder if using a method indicated on [5]
> > may also work for semantic-web redirects... but we will
> stick to 303
> > in the document, we only wanted to explain the
> http-range-14 decision.
>
> Looking at [5] that seems to be conneg as indicated above -
> ie. using a
> Content-Location: header to provide the location of the
> specific (variant).
>
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/tag/HTTP303.png
> > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/img20071212/303.png
> > [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/chips/#cp5.2
>
>
> Regards
>
> Stuart
> --
> Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road,
> Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 09:52:43 UTC