Hi Kingsley,
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
As a best practice, common use of these predicates would increase
navigability, link density, and overall cohesiveness of the burgeoning Web
of Linked Data. It would truly demonstrate practicing what we
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 20:58 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
When you create hypermedia based structured data for deployment on an
HTTP network (intranet, extranet, World Wide Web) do include a
relation that associates each Subject/Entity (or Data Item) with its
container/host document. A
Hi,
On 5 November 2010 08:51, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 20:58 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
When you create hypermedia based structured data for deployment on an
HTTP network (intranet, extranet, World Wide Web) do include a
relation that associates
Hi,
On 4 November 2010 18:42, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Nobody ever mandated 303 redirection.
I've never encountered anyone in the community that has recently
advocated (i.e. since the httpRange-14 discussion) or any
documentation that promotes anything other than using #
Ian,
(trying to keep up with this thread, maybe missed one point or the other)
I'd like to understand on what we can agree here. It seems that having a URI
for a thing and another URI for the document describing it is something most
people would acknowledge to be useful.
Two questions that
Hi Nathan,
On 4 November 2010 18:08, 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
Hi David,
On 4 November 2010 19:57, David Wood da...@3roundstones.com wrote:
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 useful
and proper activity
Hi,
On 4 November 2010 17:51, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
But, for whatever reasons, we've made our choices, each has pro's and
cons, and we have to live with them - different things have different
name, and the giant global graph is usable. Please, keep it that way.
I think it's useful to
Hi all,
To aid discussion I create a small demo of the idea put forth in my
blog post http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
Here is the URI of a toucan:
http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan
Here is the URI of a description of that toucan:
http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan.rdf
As
The original of this was sent from my Talis e-mail address which is
being held up so I'll circumvent the system and use my w3.org address to
get into the debate without further delay ;-)
On 05/11/2010 09:12, Phil Archer wrote:
Dave,
I just went back to check thinking oh no, we didn't
Hi Michael,
On 5 November 2010 09:29, Michael Hausenblas
michael.hausenb...@deri.org wrote:
It occurs to me that one of the main features of the Linked Data community
is that we *do* things rather than having endless conversations what would
be the best for the world out there. Heck, this is
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 09:34:43AM +, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Are you suggesting that Linked Data crawlers could/should look at the
status code and use that to infer new statements about the resources
returned? If so, I think that's the first time I've seen that
mentioned, and am curious as
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:54 AM, William Waites w...@styx.org wrote:
Provenance and debugging. It would be quite possible to
record the fact that this set of triples, G, were obtained
by dereferencing this uri N, at a certain time, from a
certain place, with a request that looked like this and
Hi,
On 5 November 2010 09:54, William Waites w...@styx.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 09:34:43AM +, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Are you suggesting that Linked Data crawlers could/should look at the
status code and use that to infer new statements about the resources
returned? If so, I think
Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi Nathan,
On 4 November 2010 18:08, 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
Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi,
On 4 November 2010 17:51, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
But, for whatever reasons, we've made our choices, each has pro's and
cons, and we have to live with them - different things have different
name, and the giant global graph is usable. Please, keep it that way.
I
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
What's the point in you saying:
/toucan a :Toucan; :describedBy /doc .
If the rest of the world is saying:
/toucan a :Document; :primaryTopic ex:Toucan .
Follow?
Because the data obtained by dereferencing /toucan is
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Not at all, I'm saying that if big-corp makes a /web crawler/ that describes
what documents are about and publishes RDF triples, then if you use 200 OK,
throughout the web you'll get (statements similar to) the following
All,
There are quite some specs beyond the core specs (HTTP, URIs, RDF) that are
relevant to Linked Data. In order to document this, we've set up a Web page
[1] collecting these specs. The page is primarily targeting Linked Data
newbies but should, IMHO, also be able to offer some gems for
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
What's the point in you saying:
/toucan a :Toucan; :describedBy /doc .
If the rest of the world is saying:
/toucan a :Document; :primaryTopic ex:Toucan .
Follow?
Because the data obtained by dereferencing
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
and if I publish:
http://webr3.org/nathan#me :isKingOf :TheWorld .
it's authorative and considered true?
great news all round :)
No :)
I mean't that when you dereference
http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan, the triples you
So here's a couple of questions for those of you on the list who have
implemented Linked Data tools, applications, services, etc:
* Do you rely on or require HTTP 303 redirects in your application? Or
does your app just follow the redirect?
For sindice - no we do not rely on or require them,
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Not at all, I'm saying that if big-corp makes a /web crawler/ that describes
what documents are about and publishes RDF triples, then if you use 200 OK,
throughout the web you'll get (statements similar to) the
Hi David,
Rather than respond to each of your points let me say that I agree
with most of them :) I have snipped away the things I agree with in
principle, and left the things I want to discuss further.
I have a question about http://thing-described-by.org/ - how does it
work when my
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
I'll roll with the who cares line of thinking, I certainly don't care how
you or dbpedia or foaf or dc publish your data, so long as I can deref it,
but for god sake don't go telling everybody using slash URIs and 200 is The
Right
On 11/5/10 4:51 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 20:58 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
When you create hypermedia based structured data for deployment on an
HTTP network (intranet, extranet, World Wide Web) do include a
relation that associates each Subject/Entity (or Data Item)
Hi Michael,
A good idea.
Could I request you more clearly separate the formal specifications from
the de facto community practice documents. The Change Set vocabulary, to
pick one example, doesn't really have the same standing, adoption or
level of scrutiny as the RFCs, does it?
Dave
On Fri,
Robert Fuller wrote:
However... with regard to publishing ontologies, we could expect
additional overhead if same content is delivered on retrieving different
Resources for example http://example.com/schema/latitude and
http://example.com/schema/longitude . In such a case ETag could be used
On 4 Nov 2010, at 23:32, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
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
Dave Reynolds wrote:
Hi Michael,
A good idea.
My sentiments exactly :)
Michael, also worth mentioning RDFa, Turtle, N3?
and also any note on IRI or HTTP-bis?
can you bold the link to the SWAP publications / highlight in some way,
as it's a pretty important one.
Perhaps more vocabs,
Dave,
A good idea.
Thanks.
Could I request you more clearly separate the formal specifications from
the de facto community practice documents. The Change Set vocabulary, to
pick one example, doesn't really have the same standing, adoption or
level of scrutiny as the RFCs, does it?
Good
Hi Nathan
I'm not saying you're wrong - but could you explain why it would be a pain for
FOAF terms to return 200? Which kinds of application are dereferencing those
terms and relying on a 303 response?
eg http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person currently 303s to
http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
What
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
bill.robe...@planet.nl wrote:
Hi Nathan
I'm not saying you're wrong - but could you explain why it would be a pain for
FOAF terms to return 200? Which kinds of application are dereferencing those
terms and relying on a 303 response?
eg http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person currently 303s to
On 11/5/10 6:33 AM, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
All,
There are quite some specs beyond the core specs (HTTP, URIs, RDF) that are
relevant to Linked Data. In order to document this, we've set up a Web page
[1] collecting these specs. The page is primarily targeting Linked Data
newbies but should,
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 07:19 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 11/5/10 4:51 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 20:58 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
When you create hypermedia based structured data for deployment on an
HTTP network (intranet, extranet, World Wide Web) do
Ian Davis wrote:
Hi all,
To aid discussion I create a small demo of the idea put forth in my
blog post http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
Here is the URI of a toucan:
http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan
Ian, where's the demo of /toucan#frag so everybody can see that you can
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:11 +, 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,
Dave Reynolds wrote:
Clearly simply using # URIs solves this but people can be surprisingly
reluctant to go that route.
Why? I still don't understand the reluctance, any info on the technical
non-made-up-pedantic reasons would be great.
Best,
Nathan
Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:11 +, 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
Hi Ian,
Do you suggest that the two resources (/toucan and /doc in your
example) should return the exact same data?
If yes, don't you think this would lead to people not getting the
distinction between the two URIs at all, and thus, mixing them up even
more?
Personally, I think that the hard
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the response, good to hear from an implementor.
On 5 November 2010 10:41, Robert Fuller robert.ful...@deri.org wrote:
...
However... with regard to publishing ontologies, we could expect
additional overhead if same content is delivered on retrieving different
Resources
Hi Dave
On 5 November 2010 12:35, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes but I don't think the proposal was to ban use of 303 but to add an
alternative solution, a third way :)
I have some sympathy with this. The situation I've faced several times
of late is roughly this:
...
Adding Public POWDER list. Main thread is on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Nov/
It's clear to me that there is an error in wdrs:describedby. And since I
am one of the originators of it, I'd like to do something about it.
What I wrote, and meant, in the text at [1] was:
OK, I need to add my two penneth here.
I wrote a short blog entry-like piece last night [1]. My basic point
being that I agree wholly with Ian's analysis but disagree with his
conclusions and I argue the case for a new HTTP status code.
I've taken a keen interest in this kind of thing for a
Hi Nathan - thanks for clear answer. I see the point and also the argument for
using hash URIs with ontologies.
In practice how I get round this prob is to preload my triple store with the
handful of common ontologies I know I'm going to use, so don't need to deref
them as I go along.
Cheers
Forwarding my own message, this time from my w3.org address so it
reaches the list.
Adding Public POWDER list. Main thread is on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Nov/
It's clear to me that there is an error in wdrs:describedby. And since I
am one of the originators of it,
bill.robe...@planet.nl wrote:
Hi Nathan - thanks for clear answer. I see the point and also the argument for
using hash URIs with ontologies.
Most welcome, and glad it helped :)
In practice how I get round this prob is to preload my triple store with the
handful of common ontologies I know
Hi,
On 5 November 2010 12:43, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Dave Reynolds wrote:
Clearly simply using # URIs solves this but people can be surprisingly
reluctant to go that route.
Why? I still don't understand the reluctance, any info on the technical
non-made-up-pedantic reasons would be
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
Hi all,
To aid discussion I create a small demo of the idea put forth in my
blog post http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
Here is the URI of a toucan:
http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan
Ian,
Hi Nathan,
The other way of looking at it, is that the once clear message of:
Don't use /slash URIs for things, use fragments, and if you flat out
refuse to do this then at least use the 303 to keep distinct names
has been totally lost.
I've never encountered this clear message
Nathan
One practical downside of hash URIs that I've come across is this:
Suppose I have a resource http://example.com#foo
I can provide a description of it at http://example.com - so far so good.
If someone then asks me about http://example.com#bar - for whatever reason -
but in fact I don't
Toby Inkster wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:53:50 +0100
Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
I'm wondering if there are any recommended paths for migrating RDF or
specifically an ontology from slash to fragment URIs (?)
Cool URIs don't change.
Several months later..
UnCool URIs might have to
Hi Phil,
Since you discuss HTTP status codes and their definitions, I just wanted
to point out that the current drafts of HTTPbis (i.e. the upcoming
revision of the HTTP spec) include a definition[1] for 303 specifically
tailored to the way it's used in LD today.
(There was also a long,
Leigh Dodds wrote:
On 5 November 2010 12:43, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Dave Reynolds wrote:
Clearly simply using # URIs solves this but people can be surprisingly
reluctant to go that route.
Why? I still don't understand the reluctance, any info on the technical
non-made-up-pedantic
Mike Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
Hi all,
To aid discussion I create a small demo of the idea put forth in my
blog post http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
Here is the URI of a toucan:
Thanks very much Vasily.
That's very helpful and makes it easy and right to stick with 303 IMO.
I was on the TAG and HTTP BIS mailing lists for a long time but had to
unsubscribe due to all the discussions, mostly about this and metadata
discovery, that kept distracting me ;-)
Cheers
Phil.
I might be wrong but I dont like it much . Sindice would index it as 2
documents.
http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan
http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan.rdf
i *really* would NOT want to different URLs resolving to the same thing
thanks
Giovanni
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ian Davis
On 2010 Nov 5, at 13:49, Nathan wrote:
If the point was more that if you have a million #frag's in a single doc and
you want to refactor that in to several docs, then (1) you can, just assert
it so in rdf, and (2) don't do that in the first place.
I don't think this argument works.
I
Hi,
On 5 November 2010 13:57, Giovanni Tummarello
giovanni.tummare...@deri.org wrote:
I might be wrong but I dont like it much . Sindice would index it as 2
documents.
http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan
http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan.rdf
Even though one returns a Content-Location?
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Giovanni Tummarello
giovanni.tummare...@deri.org wrote:
I might be wrong but I dont like it much . Sindice would index it as 2
documents.
http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan
http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan.rdf
i *really* would NOT want to different URLs
Vasiliy Faronov wrote:
Hi Nathan,
The other way of looking at it, is that the once clear message of:
Don't use /slash URIs for things, use fragments, and if you flat out
refuse to do this then at least use the 303 to keep distinct names
has been totally lost.
I've never encountered
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Mike Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Wrong question, correct question is if I 200 OK will people think this
is a
document, to which the answer is yes. You're toucan is a :Document.
On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:38 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:11 +, 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
Ah, it's magic in the header:
curl -i http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 14:22:40 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.8 (Ubuntu) DAV/2 SVN/1.4.6 PHP/5.2.4-2ubuntu5.10 with
Suhosin-Patch mod_wsgi/1.3 Python/2.5.2
Content-Location: toucan.rdf
Vary: negotiate
TCN: choice
Hi,
On 5 November 2010 12:37, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Wrong question, correct question is if I 200 OK will people think this
is a document, to which the answer is yes. You're toucan is a :Document.
You keep reiterating this, but I'm still not clear on what you're saying.
1. It seems
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Jörn Hees j_h...@cs.uni-kl.de wrote:
If I GET http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan i retrieve a document (I'll call
this A) with rdf statements.
This is not correct. You receive a response with an entity: the
representation. (Here entity is used in the rfc2616
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
However, if you use 303's the then first GET redirects there, then you store
the ontology against the redirected-to URI, you still have to do 40+ GETs
but each one is fast with no response-body (ontology sent down the wire)
then
Nathan, hello.
On 2010 Nov 5, at 14:31, Nathan wrote:
No, using hash URIs would certainly not mean that at all!!
Use the URI pattern you wanted to use and stick #i or something at the end of
each one. Hash URIs *do not* mean you put everything in one document, it
simply means that you
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Norman Gray nor...@astro.gla.ac.uk wrote:
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5 Nov 2010, at 15:07, Norman Gray wrote:
Nathan, hello.
On 2010 Nov 5, at 14:31, Nathan wrote:
No, using hash URIs would certainly not mean that at all!!
Use the URI pattern you wanted to use and stick #i or something at the end
of
On 11/5/10 8:35 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 07:19 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 11/5/10 4:51 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 20:58 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
When you create hypermedia based structured data for deployment on an
HTTP network (intranet,
On 05/11/10 15:06, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Nathannat...@webr3.org wrote:
However, if you use 303's the then first GET redirects there, then you store
the ontology against the redirected-to URI, you still have to do 40+ GETs
but each one is fast with no response-body
Kingsley,
My only gripe is with mutual exclusion. ..dropping 303... didn't come
across as adding an option to the mix. Ditto positioning 303 as a mandate,
which it's never really been.
I think you read too much conspiracy into 140 characters.
Ian
On 11/5/10 7:47 AM, Mischa Tuffield wrote:
On 4 Nov 2010, at 23:32, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 11/4/10 6:48 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 4 November 2010 23:24, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com
mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 11/4/10 5:09 PM, Mischa Tuffield wrote:
Drawing an
Thanks for the clarification.
As I guess there are quite a lot of people who -- like me -- didn't notice
this part of your suggestion I'll summarize it like this:
You still want to include a Content-Location field in the header denoting that
you're actually retrieving a document more precisely
On 11/5/10 8:58 AM, Phil Archer wrote:
Adding Public POWDER list. Main thread is on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Nov/
It's clear to me that there is an error in wdrs:describedby. And since
I am one of the originators of it, I'd like to do something about it.
What I
Great job! This was sorely needed.
Regards,
Dave
On Nov 5, 2010, at 06:33, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
All,
There are quite some specs beyond the core specs (HTTP, URIs, RDF) that are
relevant to Linked Data. In order to document this, we've set up a Web page
[1] collecting these
On 11/5/10 9:13 AM, bill.robe...@planet.nl wrote:
Hi Nathan - thanks for clear answer. I see the point and also the
argument for using hash URIs with ontologies.
In practice how I get round this prob is to preload my triple store
with the handful of common ontologies I know I'm going to
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Any advance?
I've written on it extensively and linked to two pieced in my recent
303 blog post:
http://iand.posterous.com/2007/11/fragmentation-reprise
The core of the problem is that hashed URIs are
Dave,
I admire your proposal and think it's much better than the current 303,
thus kudos++.
However, it doesn't solve the *core* problem which is that different
things need different names, and names that can never be thought to name
something else. /slash uri's have this problem (they can
David Wood wrote:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 08:37, Nathan wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
Hi all,
To aid discussion I create a small demo of the idea put forth in my
blog post http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
Here is the URI of a toucan:
http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan
Ian, where's the
Mike Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Mike Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Wrong question, correct question is if I 200 OK will people think this
is a
document, to which the answer is yes. You're toucan is
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Better clear that up, noticed that it's an age old XHTML-RDFa potential
issue, so I'll see if we can get it covered in the WG and relay back to the
TAG to hopefully clear the issue.
Suppose I assign the ID 'mars' to represent the
Nathan,
Thanks for your feedback!
Michael, also worth mentioning RDFa, Turtle, N3?
Hmmm. Not sure, as I was hoping to avoid duplication to a certain extend, as
I think the SWAP publications page does an excellent job already. But maybe
the most important ones in the
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Better clear that up, noticed that it's an age old XHTML-RDFa potential
issue, so I'll see if we can get it covered in the WG and relay back to the
TAG to hopefully clear the issue.
Suppose I assign the ID 'mars'
On 11/5/10 11:19 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
Kingsley,
My only gripe is with mutual exclusion. ..dropping 303... didn't come
across as adding an option to the mix. Ditto positioning 303 as a mandate,
which it's never really been.
I think you read too much conspiracy into 140 characters.
Ian
Ian,
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
However, if you use 303's the then first GET redirects there, then you store
the ontology against the redirected-to URI, you still have to do 40+ GETs
but each one is fast with no response-body (ontology sent down
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Mike Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Mike Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Wrong question, correct question is if I 200 OK will people
On Nov 5, 2010, at 11:42, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
David Wood wrote:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 08:37, Nathan wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
Hi all,
To aid discussion I create a small demo of the idea put forth in my
blog post http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
Here is the URI of a
On 11/5/10 11:12 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Norman Graynor...@astro.gla.ac.uk wrote:
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
Norman Gray wrote:
Nathan, hello.
On 2010 Nov 5, at 14:31, Nathan wrote:
No, using hash URIs would certainly not mean that at all!!
Use the URI pattern you wanted to use and stick #i or something at the end of
each one. Hash URIs *do not* mean you put everything in one document, it simply
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 10:03 +, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi,
On 5 November 2010 09:54, William Waites w...@styx.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 09:34:43AM +, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Keeping this quantity of information around might quickly
turn out to be too data-intensive to be
David Wood wrote:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 11:42, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
David Wood wrote:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 08:37, Nathan wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
Hi all,
To aid discussion I create a small demo of the idea put forth in my
blog post http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
Here
Hi,
I submitted both urls to sindice earlier. Both were indexed and have the
same content. In the search results[1] one displays with title A
Toucan, the other with title, A Description of a Toucan.
http://sindice.com/search?q=toucan+domain%3Aiandavis.comqt=term
Robert.
On 05/11/10 09:43,
Mischa Tuffield wrote:
On 5 Nov 2010, at 15:07, Norman Gray wrote:
Nathan, hello.
On 2010 Nov 5, at 14:31, Nathan wrote:
No, using hash URIs would certainly not mean that at all!!
Use the URI pattern you wanted to use and stick #i or something at the end of
each one. Hash URIs *do not*
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Robert Fuller robert.ful...@deri.org wrote:
I submitted both urls to sindice earlier. Both were indexed and have the
same content. In the search results[1] one displays with title A Toucan,
the other with title, A Description of a Toucan.
On 11/5/10 10:41 AM, Jörn Hees wrote:
Ah, it's magic in the header:
curl -i http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 14:22:40 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.8 (Ubuntu) DAV/2 SVN/1.4.6 PHP/5.2.4-2ubuntu5.10 with
Suhosin-Patch mod_wsgi/1.3 Python/2.5.2
Content-Location:
Mike Kelly wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-12#page-14
snipped and fuller version inserted:
4. If the response has a Content-Location header field, and that URI
is not the same as the effective request URI, then the response
asserts that its
Le 05/11/2010 16:42, Nathan a écrit :
[skip]
Sadly your proposed 210 still has it, the true problem isn't a status
code thing, it's an if I can GET it, it's a document, hence the
earlier outlined problems with 303 as it stands, still the same problem.
So, you are against hash URIs? Because if
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
