Re: Call for proposals to amend the "httpRange-14 resolution"

I find the document at 
to be hard to read, overly broad, unproductively pedantic and
unnecessarily entangling philosophical questions with simple matters of
protocol design.

As an alternate proposal, I have started a significantly simplified
document on the W3C wiki at 

Others are encouraged to contribute.  The goals are:

 - to be simpler, clearer and more direct;

 - to limit the scope to http (and https) URIs, because this is where
the LOD community is experiencing the problem that this specification

 - to specify this as a simple protocol between a URI owner that wishes
to provide a URI definition, and an agent that wishes to discover that
URI definition;

 - to avoid placing constraints on the form or meaning of a URI

 - to avoid placing constraints on an application's use of a URI

 - to additionally specify a simple "implicit" URI definition that can
be used in the case where a resource is defined implicitly as being an
"information resource" (as a result of an HTTP 200 "OK" status code
being returned, as per the httpRange-14 resolution[issue-14-resolved]);

 - to be consistent with the existing httpRange-14
resolution[issue-14-resolved], the existing Cool URIs for the Semantic
Web[cooluris] document and existing practice. 


On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 10:57 -0500, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> Concerns regarding the efficiency of 303 redirects and the difficulty
> in deploying them on hosting services have been raised numerous times
> since the TAG proposed the 303 redirect as a way to use "hashless"
> URIs for semantic web and linked data purposes (i.e. beyond the
> purposes of the hypertext Web). The TAG now seeks input from the
> community in the form of proposals to amend the resolution in order to
> address these concerns. Proposals may give new discovery techniques,
> or take any other form that might help mitigate these problems.
> Please consult the following document for details of this call:
> (I will be re-posting this call to the semantic web and linked data
> discussion lists in a few hours, after www-tag readers have pointed
> out any egregious errors, and after I have had a chance to resubscribe
> to the lists under my new email address, so that I have posting
> privileges.)
> Best
> Jonathan Rees

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 19:29:04 UTC