On 11/6/10 9:05 AM, Nathan wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote:
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 payload is a representation of the resource
identified by the Content-Location URI. However, such an
assertion cannot be trusted unless it can be verified by other
means (not defined by HTTP).
If a client wants to make a statement about the specific document
then a response that includes a content-location is giving you the
information necessary to do that correctly. It's complemented and
further clarified in the entity body itself through something like
isDescribedBy.
I stand corrected, think there's something in this, and it could maybe
possibly provide the semantic indirection needed when
Content-Location is
there, and different to the effective request uri, and complimented
by some
statements (perhaps RDF in the body, or Link header, or html link
element)
to assert the same.
Covers a few use-cases, might have legs (once HTTP-bis is a standard?).
Nicely caught Mike!
+1 This is precisely what we need.
The jury's still you on this one though, see:
http://markmail.org/message/u4yctkaj2i3pms2o
Nathan,
Aren't juries about peers? In this case, aren't the peers those that
publish and consume Linked Data?
I think practitioners make this call :-)
Leigh: yes, indeed, "Linked Data Practitioners" :-)
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
