Re: Proposal to amend the httpRange-14 resolution [revision]

> After some feedback from Jonathan Rees and others, I have decided to
> submit a revision of my previous proposal
> (

I have been asked off list what the differences between my proposal and
those of Jeni Tennison [1] and David Booth [2] are since they seem
similar. This comparison is my personal interpretation of the other
proposals, and I would like to apologize in advance if I have gotten
some things wrong.

First, I have tried to make my proposal agnostic to whether the act of
description on the web is content-based or description-based. The aim is
for the proposal to work for both interpretation, even when that of the
producer and that of the consumer differs. I can't comment on how the
other proposals work in this aspect since I haven't analyzed them that
deeply, but I suspect they are similar.

The technical details of all three proposals are very similar and the
result would be the same for everything except a couple of edge cases,
that could easily be harmonized.

[1] The differences are mostly a matter of presentation and these stem
from diverging ways of editing the baseline document. The proposal
ignores links within the RDF graph (rdfs:seeAlso, rdfs:isDefinedBy)

[2] The focus seems to have switched from descriptions to definitions,
and this increase in strictness will affect some cases, notably the one
with an RDF graph from a direct 200 response.

The major reason I will proceed with my separate proposal is that both 
[1] and [2] retains *implicit* description of a resource as a
"information resource" in some cases. My proposal only uses explicit
definitions provided by the URI owner and avoids involving the class of
IRs altogether.

Tore Eriksson


Tore Eriksson [tore.eriksson at]

Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 01:43:48 UTC