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

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://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: 
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.

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