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

Re: Middle ground change proposal for httpRange-14 -- submission

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:10:10 -0400
To: トーレ エリクソン <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <1332853810.2181.55135.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Hi Tore,

On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 16:48 +0900, トーレ エリクソン wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> Although we differ on the point of Information Resources (surprise,
> surprise), I think your proposal is quite similar to mine. 

That seems like a good thing.  :)

> I'd like you
> to clarify one difference though. In section 3.23 you require
> 
> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
> <http://example/toucan> rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://example/toucan> .
> 
> Why can't the representation be a URI definition even without this
> statement? It seems to me that it being served as a 200 should be enough
> to be sure of its validity.

Good question.  I'm not sure.  I think the 200 response does indicate
that the URI owner intended to make whatever statements the document
contains, but I don't know if that should automatically mean that the
URI owner considers them to be a URI *definition*, as I think it is
important that the URI owner be able to clearly distinguish between
content that is intended to be a URI definition and other content
involving the target URI.

I've added this as Issue 10:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/UriDefinitionDiscoveryProtocol#3.2.3._200_response_with_RDF_content 
[[
Should RDF content from an HTTP 200 response be considered a URI
definition by default, even if it does not contain an rdfs:isDefinedBy
assertion for the target URI?  Are there cases where the URI owner would
want to serve an RDF document from a target URI without intending it as
a URI definition of that URI?  Given that RDF content may be hard to
distinguish from other content, are there cases where the URI owner
would want to serve _any_ document without intending that document as a
URI definition of that URI?
]]

I'd be interested in hearing more thoughts on this.


-- 
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 Tuesday, 27 March 2012 13:10:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:43 UTC