Matthias Samwald wrote:
> - If the server replies 303 See Other, follow the link in the
> response to get information about resource. [obscure hack but worth
> a try]
> (see http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14)
I guess we should find a diplomatic formulation for that.
I find the working a bit too "arrogant" too. 303 is a necessary solution
for "slash" URI, which has many advantages under various circumstances.
Xiaoshu, you probably criticise the need for additional triples, but
you need to be aware that these additional statements are only made
for *information resources*, not for all resources in the RDF graph.
If you look at most of the current biomedical RDF/OWL datasets,
information resources are only a small fraction of all defined resources.
I am not sure if I have missed something, why only "information
resources" need to be persistently resolved? Unless, you are suggesting
that we only "hash" URI is used for non-IR. This debate has been going
on for quite a while, I think both hash and slash URI will exist in
practice. What you can probably suggest is the resolve the URI's
namespace, perhaps?
Also, I found this sentence in the example of the problem statement
"...How to make the user's application work without having to rewrite
the RDF? "
You still need to rewrite the RDF even if you have a resolution
ontology, am I right?
Cheers,
Xiaoshu
