Hi all,
The subject of this email is the title of a blog post I wrote last
night questioning whether we actually need to continue with the 303
redirect approach for Linked Data. My suggestion is that replacing it
with a 200 is in practice harmless and that nothing actually breaks on
the web.
Hi, Richard,
We have been working on an online RDFa editing service called RDFa²
(RDFa Square) and you may have a try at
[http://demos.inf.ed.ac.uk:8836/rdfasquare]
It is a very lightweight online annotating tool, which is dedicated to
help users in carrying out multi-topic annotation with
On 11/4/10 9:22 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
Hi all,
The subject of this email is the title of a blog post I wrote last
night questioning whether we actually need to continue with the 303
redirect approach for Linked Data. My suggestion is that replacing it
with a 200 is in practice harmless and that
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Ian,
Q: Is 303 really necessary?
A: Yes, it is.
Why? Read on...
I don't think you explain this in your email.
What's the problem with having many options re. mechanics for associating an
HTTP based Entity
On 11/4/10 10:22 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Ian,
Q: Is 303 really necessary?
A: Yes, it is.
Why? Read on...
I don't think you explain this in your email.
What's the problem with having many options re. mechanics for
Hi Ian
no its not needed see this discussion
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Jul/0086.html
pointing to 203 406 or thers..
..but a number of social community mechanisms will activate if you
bring this up, ranging from russian style you're being antipatriotic
criticizing the
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 11/4/10 10:22 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com
wrote:
Ian,
Q: Is 303 really necessary?
A: Yes, it is.
Why? Read on...
I don't think you explain
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Giovanni Tummarello
giovanni.tummare...@deri.org wrote:
Hi Ian
no its not needed see this discussion
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Jul/0086.html
pointing to 203 406 or thers..
..but a number of social community mechanisms will activate
Hi,
On 4 November 2010 15:21, Giovanni Tummarello
giovanni.tummare...@deri.org wrote:
..but a number of social community mechanisms will activate if you
bring this up, ranging from russian style you're being antipatriotic
criticizing the existing status quo to ..but its so deployed now
and
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 01:22:09PM +, Ian Davis wrote:
Hi all,
The subject of this email is the title of a blog post I wrote last
night questioning whether we actually need to continue with the 303
redirect approach for Linked Data. My suggestion is that replacing it
with a 200 is in
I think it's an orthogonal issue to the one RDFa solves. How should I
use RDFa to respond to requests to http://iandavis.com/id/me which is
a URI that denotes me?
hashless?
mm one could be to return HTML + RDFa describing yourself. add a
triple saying http://iandavis.com/id/me
Hi,
On 4 November 2010 13:22, Ian Davis m...@iandavis.com wrote:
http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
I was minded to look back at the Cool URIs for the Semantic Web note,
which defines two criteria for naming real-world objects with URIs
[1]:
1. Be on the Web.
2. Be unambiguous.
On 11/4/10 11:23 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 11/4/10 10:22 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com
wrote:
Ian,
Q: Is 303 really necessary?
A: Yes, it is.
Why? Read
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Giovanni Tummarello
giovanni.tummare...@deri.org wrote:
I think it's an orthogonal issue to the one RDFa solves. How should I
use RDFa to respond to requests to http://iandavis.com/id/me which is
a URI that denotes me?
hashless?
mm one could be to return
Basically what you are saying is: if I have a single URI that responds
to an HTTP GET with (X)HTML+RDFa by default, and supports other RDF
serializations through content negotiation, then all of that can be
done without recourse to a 303 redirect and should be perfectly
compatible with linked data
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
I don't presume. I prefer to use terms that are familiar with the
people on this list who might be reading the message. Introducing
unnecessary capitalised phrases distracts from the message.
Again, you presume.
On 11/4/10 11:21 AM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
Hi Ian
no its not needed see this discussion
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Jul/0086.html
pointing to 203 406 or thers..
..but a number of social community mechanisms will activate if you
bring this up, ranging from russian
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 11/4/10 11:50 AM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
its up to clients to really care about the distinction, i personally
know of no useful clients for the web of data that will visibly
misbehave if a person is mistaken
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Ian Davis m...@iandavis.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Bradley Allen bradley.p.al...@gmail.com
wrote:
Basically what you are saying is: if I have a single URI that responds
to an HTTP GET with (X)HTML+RDFa by default, and supports other RDF
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Ian Davis m...@iandavis.com wrote:
Hi all,
The subject of this email is the title of a blog post I wrote last
night questioning whether we actually need to continue with the 303
redirect approach for Linked Data. My suggestion is that replacing it
with a 200
Ok, yes, we can use ontology or ex:isDescribedBy, but none of solution
explained what happens when you dereferencing the URI over HTTP which you
just used to refer to the non-information resources.
Don't u need 303 or hash URI again to differentiate when
dereferencing whatever subject URI we
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Robin YANG yang.squ...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, yes, we can use ontology or ex:isDescribedBy, but none of solution
explained what happens when you dereferencing the URI over HTTP which you
just used to refer to the non-information resources.
Don't u need 303 or hash
Hi all,
This is a horrible idea, for the following reasons (in my opinion and suitably
caveated):
- Some small number of people and organizations need to provide back-links on
the Web since the Web doesn't have them. 303s provide a generic mechanism for
that to occur. URL curation is a
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ian Davis m...@iandavis.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Robin YANG yang.squ...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, yes, we can use ontology or ex:isDescribedBy, but none of solution
explained what happens when you dereferencing the URI over HTTP which you
just used
Hi Dave,
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:56 PM, David Wood da...@3roundstones.com wrote:
Hi all,
This is a horrible idea, for the following reasons (in my opinion and
suitably caveated):
- Some small number of people and organizations need to provide back-links on
the Web since the Web doesn't
Dave,
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 12:56 -0400, David Wood wrote:
Hi all,
snip
- Wide-spread mishandling of HTTP content negotiation makes it difficult if
not impossible to rely upon. Until we can get browser vendors and server
vendors to handle content negotiation in a reasonable way, reliance
On Nov 4, 2010, at 13:17, Patrick Durusau wrote:
Dave,
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 12:56 -0400, David Wood wrote:
Hi all,
snip
- Wide-spread mishandling of HTTP content negotiation makes it difficult if
not impossible to rely upon. Until we can get browser vendors and server
vendors to
David,
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 13:24 -0400, David Wood wrote:
On Nov 4, 2010, at 13:17, Patrick Durusau wrote:
snip
But curious if you can point to numbers on support for 303s and
http-range-14? Might have enough flexibility but if not widely
supported, so what?
Sure. Both
Ian Davis wrote:
Hi all,
The subject of this email is the title of a blog post I wrote last
night questioning whether we actually need to continue with the 303
redirect approach for Linked Data. My suggestion is that replacing it
with a 200 is in practice harmless and that nothing actually
On 11/4/10 1:51 PM, Nathan wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
Hi all,
The subject of this email is the title of a blog post I wrote last
night questioning whether we actually need to continue with the 303
redirect approach for Linked Data. My suggestion is that replacing it
with a 200 is in practice
Harry Halpin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Ian Davis m...@iandavis.com wrote:
Hi all,
The subject of this email is the title of a blog post I wrote last
night questioning whether we actually need to continue with the 303
redirect approach for Linked Data. My suggestion is that
Nathan,
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 17:51 +, Nathan wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
Hi all,
The subject of this email is the title of a blog post I wrote last
night questioning whether we actually need to continue with the 303
redirect approach for Linked Data. My suggestion is that replacing
On Thursday, November 4, 2010, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Please, don't.
303 is a PITA, and it has detrimental affects across the board from network
load through to server admin. Likewise #frag URIs have there own set of PITA
features (although they are nicer on the network and
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
You see it's not about what we say, it's about what other say, and if 10
huge corps analyse the web and spit out billions of triples saying that
anything 200 OK'd is a document, then at the end when we consider the RDF
graph of
Hi,
Feel free anyone to suggest opengraph use 301, 302, 303, 307 (we support
them all), since at the moment with a 404 they are missing out on all
the benefit of the sindice reasoner ;-)
http://opengraphprotocol.org/schema/latitude
It is common when publishing an ontology to have the url
Ian Davis wrote:
On Thursday, November 4, 2010, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
If 303s are killing you then use fragment URIs, if you refuse to use fragments
for whatever reason then use something new like tdb:'s, support the data you've
published in one pattern, or archive it and remove it
On 11/4/10 12:06 PM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
I don't presume. I prefer to use terms that are familiar with the
people on this list who might be reading the message. Introducing
unnecessary capitalised phrases distracts from
Ian Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
You see it's not about what we say, it's about what other say, and if 10
huge corps analyse the web and spit out billions of triples saying that
anything 200 OK'd is a document, then at the end when we consider the
It has been pointed out to me that the many resources we are
encountering for
http://opengraphprotocol.org/schema/latitude
are actually wrong - so deserving a 404, the resource should correctly
be written:
http://ogp.me/ns#latitude
But never mind, that doesn't resolve either...
On 04/11/10
On Thursday, November 4, 2010, Jörn Hees j_h...@cs.uni-kl.de wrote:
Hi Ian,
From your blogpost:
Under my new scheme:
GET /toucan responds with 200 and a representation containing some RDF which
includes the triples /toucan ex:owner /anna and /toucan
ex:isDescribedBy /doc
GET /doc responds
On 11/4/10 12:20 PM, bill.robe...@planet.nl wrote:
Can I attempt to broker peace between Ian and Kingsley in this
discussion? :-)
Because it seems to me that they are fundamentally agreeing with each
other, though considering different aspects of the problem. Kingsley
is taking a very
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Ian Davis m...@iandavis.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 4, 2010, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Please, don't.
303 is a PITA, and it has detrimental affects across the board from network
load through to server admin. Likewise #frag URIs have there own set of
On 11/4/10 12:22 PM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 11/4/10 11:50 AM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
its up to clients to really care about the distinction, i personally
know of no useful clients for the web of data that will
On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ian Davis wrote:
On Thursday, November 4, 2010, Jörn Hees j_h...@cs.uni-kl.de wrote:
Hi Ian,
From your blogpost:
Under my new scheme:
GET /toucan responds with 200 and a representation containing some RDF
which includes the triples /toucan ex:owner /anna
On 11/4/10 12:33 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Ian Davism...@iandavis.com wrote:
Hi all,
The subject of this email is the title of a blog post I wrote last
night questioning whether we actually need to continue with the 303
redirect approach for Linked Data. My
On 11/4/10 12:56 PM, David Wood wrote:
Hi all,
This is a horrible idea, for the following reasons (in my opinion and suitably
caveated):
- Some small number of people and organizations need to provide back-links on
the Web since the Web doesn't have them. 303s provide a generic mechanism
William Waites wrote:
we need some kind of document - description indirection...
tdb: .. provides a ready means for identifying non-information
resources by semantic indirection
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-06
On 11/4/10 2:09 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
Nathan,
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 17:51 +, Nathan wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
Hi all,
The subject of this email is the title of a blog post I wrote last
night questioning whether we actually need to continue with the 303
redirect approach for Linked
On Nov 4, 2010, at 13:14, Ian Davis wrote:
Hi Dave,
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:56 PM, David Wood da...@3roundstones.com wrote:
Hi all,
This is a horrible idea, for the following reasons (in my opinion and
suitably caveated):
- Some small number of people and organizations need to
Pretty much +1.
Of course, being a Good Citizen of the LOD Community, I have always done
the 303 thing (or hash), as recommended in the relevant docs, even if not
mandated. This was despite the fact that I disagreed that it was worth the
candle, compared with many of the more pragmatic, and social
On Nov 4, 2010, at 15:04, Harry Halpin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Ian Davis m...@iandavis.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 4, 2010, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Please, don't.
303 is a PITA, and it has detrimental affects across the board from network
load through to
David Wood wrote:
On Nov 4, 2010, at 15:04, Harry Halpin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Ian Davis m...@iandavis.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 4, 2010, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Please, don't.
303 is a PITA, and it has detrimental affects across the board from network
load
Kingsley- I didn't say I had ever lost this option. My problem is that this
simpler option is not acknowledged as a legitimate best practice,
which it is, in my opinion. - BPA
Bradley P. Allen
http://bradleypallen.org
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
snip/
On 4 Nov 2010, at 20:23, Nathan wrote:
David Wood wrote:
On Nov 4, 2010, at 15:04, Harry Halpin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Ian Davis m...@iandavis.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 4, 2010, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Hi Ian,
You raise two issues: 1. Whether there is need to use different URIs for
the toucan versus the toucan's web page; and if so (2) how to get from
one URI to the other.
ISSUE 1: Whether there is need to use different URIs for the toucan
versus the toucan's web page. Some time ago I showed
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 19:26 +, Nathan wrote:
William Waites wrote:
we need some kind of document - description indirection...
tdb: .. provides a ready means for identifying non-information
resources by semantic indirection
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-06
On 11/4/10 5:09 PM, Mischa Tuffield wrote:
Drawing an analogy, this email is signed, I am not signed, the email has a uri
identifying the person which sent, and they are quite different.
Cheers,
Mischa *2 [cents|pence] worth
Best,
Nathan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
snip
Also please note that if you mint your URIs using a 303-redirect service
such as http://thing-described-by.org/ then the extra network hop from
the 303 redirect could be optimized away by parsing the URI, as
described here:
http://thing-described-by.org/#optimizing
For example, you would have
On 4 November 2010 23:24, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 11/4/10 5:09 PM, Mischa Tuffield wrote:
Drawing an analogy, this email is signed, I am not signed, the email has a
uri identifying the person which sent, and they are quite different.
Cheers,
Mischa *2 [cents|pence]
On 11/4/10 6:48 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 4 November 2010 23:24, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 11/4/10 5:09 PM, Mischa Tuffield wrote:
Drawing an analogy, this email is signed, I am not signed, the email has a
uri identifying the person which sent, and they are quite
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 18:27 -0400, mike amundsen wrote:
snip
Also please note that if you mint your URIs using a 303-redirect service
such as http://thing-described-by.org/ then the extra network hop from
the 303 redirect could be optimized away by parsing the URI, as
described here:
All,
So when all is said an done, post 303 redirection imbroglio, the moral
of the story *seems* to read as follows:
When you make a hypermedia based Ontology for deployment on an HTTP
network (intranet, extranet, World Wide Web) do include a relation that
associates it with the Properties
snip
It is *a* solution -- not necessarily *the* solution.
/snip
understood.
snip
And if you don't
want it centralized, there are ways to get around that also, which I
discussed in 2005:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0057.html
/snip
The alternate method described
63 matches
Mail list logo
