- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:53:47 -0400
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 3/25/2012 3:37 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > x 303 -> y means "y is a description of x" and therefore y is an information resource. My point is: that's a perfectly coherent definition for 303 in principle, but I don't read RFC 2616 as saying that. I read RFC 2616 as saying, "If you were interested in x, then y is something that you might want to >see also<". Now if (the representation of) y happens to be an RDF document that happens to make statements about x, terrific. I'm fine encouraging that idiom. I'm a bit nervous about saying: "by the way, if y were to turn out to be anything other than such a description, than that 303 is certainly an error". Where are the normative specs supporting that conclusion? Noah
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 20:54:15 UTC