On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Ian Davis <[email protected]> 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 breaks on > the web. Please take a moment to read it if you are interested. > > http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
In a purely personal capacity, I like the approach of just using 200, i.e. with RDFa or whatever, rather than 303. If we want to disambiguate URIs, the IRW ontology [1] offers a nice class called "nonInformationResource" and "InformationResource" that one can use to disambiguate. See this paper [2] on "an Ontology of Resources for Linked Data" for a walk-through example. My reasoning is not architectural, but simply efficiency. It is rather inefficient to have a redirection in the form of a 303 if one can get the same info without using 303. Note that Microsoft's oData may one day be a serious competitor to Linked Data, and if you asked many programmers and open data people who are not already committed to RDF if they would use Atom + HTTP GET and no redirects over RDF/XML and a weird 303 redirect, I think the answer would be rather self-evident. [1]http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/web/irw.owl [2]http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2009/papers/ldow2009_paper19.pdf > > Cheers, > > Ian > >
