W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

Re: URIs, used in RDF, that do not have associated documentation

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:40:44 -0400
Message-ID: <4F78AF3C.7030209@openlinksw.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com>, トーレ エリクソン <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On 4/1/12 11:55 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Representations/octet streams are not just a very small piece of HTTP
>> > architecture, they are the messages in a message passing protocol.
> No doubt. But HTTP does not concern itself with what these messages are *about*. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying it should. After all, it is a transfer protocol, not an ontology language. Which is exactly my point. 
>
> Pat
>
>
Really great point!

Part of the problem we have re. this whole HttpRange-14 imbroglio is the
conflation of a transport protocol and its actual payload. A 200 OK
indicates that there is a payload at a location, identified by a URL. No
dimension of Web interaction changes what a transport protocol is all
about.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen








Received on Sunday, 1 April 2012 19:41:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:14 UTC