W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2010

Fwd: Is 303 really necessary?

From: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 16:26:26 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Av-p=aUk5zC8P94gqvhtZQ6rsVYnOQmsC9w==@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
Norman's statement below captures the essence of the argument.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Is 303 really necessary?
To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Cc: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>


On 2010 Nov 4, at 13:22, Ian Davis wrote:

> http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary

I haven't been aware of the following formulation of Ian's
problem+solution in the thread so far.  Apologies if I've missed it,
or if (as I guess) it's deducible from someone's longer post.

httpRange-14 requires that a URI with a 200 response MUST be an IR; a
URI with a 303 MAY be a NIR.

Ian is (effectively) suggesting that a URI with a 200 response MAY be
an IR, in the sense that it is defeasibly taken to be an IR, unless
this is contradicted by a self-referring statement within the RDF
obtained from the URI.

Is that about right?  That fits in with Harry's remarks about IRW, and
the general suspicion of deriving important semantics from the details
of the HTTP transaction.  Here, the only semantics derivable from the
transaction is defeasible.  In the absence of RDF, this is equivalent
to the httpRange-14 finding, so might require only adjustment, rather
than replacement, of httpRange-14.

All the best,


Norman Gray  :  http://nxg.me.uk
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 16:26:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:36 UTC