On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:38 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote: > On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:11 +0000, Norman Gray wrote: >> Greetings, >> >> On 2010 Nov 4, at 13:22, Ian Davis wrote: >> >>> http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary >> >> I haven't been aware of the following formulation of Ian's problem+solution >> in the thread so far. Apologies if I've missed it, or if (as I guess) it's >> deducible from someone's longer post. >> >> vvvv >> httpRange-14 requires that a URI with a 200 response MUST be an IR; a URI >> with a 303 MAY be a NIR. >> >> Ian is (effectively) suggesting that a URI with a 200 response MAY be an IR, >> in the sense that it is defeasibly taken to be an IR, unless this is >> contradicted by a self-referring statement within the RDF obtained from the >> URI. >> ^^^^ >> >> Is that about right? That fits in with Harry's remarks about IRW, and the >> general suspicion of deriving important semantics from the details of the >> HTTP transaction. Here, the only semantics derivable from the transaction >> is defeasible. In the absence of RDF, this is equivalent to the >> httpRange-14 finding, so might require only adjustment, rather than >> replacement, of httpRange-14. > > Very nice. That seems like an accurate and very helpful way of looking > at Ian's proposal. > > Dave
+1 Pat > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
