- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:21:04 -0400
- To: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Oops! I made an important mistake in my last message -- I included a rule in the wrong place. Please ignore my previous message and read this one instead. -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org> To: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com> Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org List <www-tag@w3.org> Subject: Re: Issue-57 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:07:51 -0400 Hi Ian, On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 17:07 +0100, Ian Davis wrote: [ . . . ] > >> <ex:i> <fb:like> <http://128.252.39.97/SnapshotJPEG>. [ . . . ] > That URI belongs to a webcam, [ . . . ] > My position is that we should avoid forcing publishers to understand > the distinction between an IR and everything else, [ . . . ] As the httpRange-14 decision is currently stated, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html it does cause one to attempt to distinguish between an IR and a non-IR, and as we all know, that leads straight to a rat hole. But please note that the nice thing about the way Jonathan has recently framed the problem is that it recasts the problem as a question of how to write metadata, and this allows one to largely side-step the IR/non-IR question: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jun/0119.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jun/0130.html The crux of the idea is that instead of taking the 200 response code to mean that <http://128.252.39.97/SnapshotJPEG> identifies an IR (thus forcing you to think about whether it is or isn't an IR), instead take the 200 response code to imply something like the following (in n3): { ?rep h:isRepFrom "http://128.252.39.97/SnapshotJPEG" . <http://128.252.39.97/SnapshotJPEG> ?p ?v . } => { ?rep ?p ?v . } . assuming that h:isRepFrom has been suitably defined to mean that ?rep is a representation (in the AWWW sense) obtained from http://128.252.39.97/SnapshotJPEG , i.e., ?rep is the content returned in the HTTP response. Some notes: - Whether you choose to accept the above RDF is a different question. For example, if you think that the server has been misconfigured or compromised or the URI owner ignored the httpRange-14 rule, then you might choose to ignore this RDF. - Notice that what's being concluded is not a simple set of statements, but a new rule -- a rule that allows you to make useful metadata inferences if you choose to accept it. For example, if you already knew: <http://128.252.39.97/SnapshotJPEG> xhv:license <http://example/l1> . and you obtained a representation ?rep from http://128.252.39.97/SnapshotJPEG then you could conclude that the license applied to that representation: ?rep xhv:license <http://example/l1> . Granted, this recasting of the problem still leaves open the question of whether RDF data publishers should be encouraged (or to what extent they should be encouraged) to issue a 200 status code only if they want clients to draw the above conclusions. I.e., your suggestion of allowing the content in the response body to override the above conclusions would still be on the table. But it at least (to my mind) would help us avoid the IR/non-IR rat hole in that discussion. What do you think? -- David Booth, Ph.D. http://dbooth.org/ Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
Received on Monday, 27 June 2011 19:21:38 UTC