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
