date:20101104

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

2010-11-04 Thread mike amundsen


> It is *a* solution -- not necessarily *the* solution.

understood.


> And if you don't
> want it centralized, there are ways to get around that also, which I
> discussed in 2005:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0057.html

The alternate method described there looks (to me) quite a bit like
Ian's proposal (using a triple to sort out the indirection).


It is conceptually similar in that it can define its own conventions and
semantics.

yes, that was my observation.


However, the key point is that it is *layered* on the good
old http scheme.  Thus, if you click on this URI:

 http://t-d-b.org/?http://dbooth.org/2005/dbooth/

it works, with no changes needed to your browser

So the thinking here is to use the "concept" of a scheme without
actually minting one because the most common client today would throw
an error if an actual scheme was used, right?


mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me


#RESTFest 2010
http://rest-fest.googlecode.com




On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 20:42, David Booth  wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 18:27 -0400, mike amundsen wrote:
>> 
>> Also please note that if you mint your URIs using a 303-redirect service
>> such as http://thing-described-by.org/ then the extra network hop from
>> the 303 redirect could be optimized away by parsing the URI, as
>> described here:
>> http://thing-described-by.org/#optimizing
>> For example, you would have the relationship:
>>
>>  
>>      :isDescribedBy
>>            .
>> 
>> So the solution is to introduce a URI convention (assigning meaning to
>> the convention) and use a central service to implement this feature.
>
> It is *a* solution -- not necessarily *the* solution.  And if you don't
> want it centralized, there are ways to get around that also, which I
> discussed in 2005:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0057.html
>
>>
>> 
>> so if the toucan were denoted by the URI
>> http://t-d-b.org/?http://example/toucan-page
>> the you know that its description is located at
>> http://example/toucan-page
>> and there is no need to actually dereference the other URI.
>> 
>> And to expect consumers of the URI to also understand and honor that
>> convention.
>>
>> That sure looks|sounds to me like a new URI scheme.
>
> It is not a URI scheme as defined in RFC 3986:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986
> It is conceptually similar in that it can define its own conventions and
> semantics.  However, the key point is that it is *layered* on the good
> old http scheme.  Thus, if you click on this URI:
>
>  http://t-d-b.org/?http://dbooth.org/2005/dbooth/
>
> it works, with no changes needed to your browser.  In contrast, if you
> click on this URI:
>
>  tdb:http://dbooth.org/2005/dbooth/
>
> You get an error.
>
>
>
> --
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
> http://dbooth.org/
>
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
>
>

isDefinedBy and isDescribedBy, Tale of two missing predicates

2010-11-04 Thread Kingsley Idehen


All,

So when all is said an done, post 303 redirection imbroglio, the moral 
of the story *seems* to read as follows:


When you make a hypermedia based Ontology for deployment on an HTTP 
network (intranet, extranet, World Wide Web) do include a relation that 
associates it with the Properties and Classes that it describes. 
Commonly used predicate for this is: rdfs:isDefinedBy [1] .


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 suitable predicate for this is: 
wdrs:describedBy [2] .


At the current time, most ontologies deployed on the Web do not include 
rdfs:isDefinedBy triples. The same applies to descriptor documents (RDF 
included) currently deployed on the Web re. wdrs:isDescribeBy.


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 
preach, dog-food style!



Links:

1. http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedBy
2. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_isdefinedby.


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

2010-11-04 Thread David Booth

On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 18:27 -0400, mike amundsen wrote:
> 
> Also please note that if you mint your URIs using a 303-redirect service
> such as http://thing-described-by.org/ then the extra network hop from
> the 303 redirect could be optimized away by parsing the URI, as
> described here:
> http://thing-described-by.org/#optimizing
> For example, you would have the relationship:
> 
>  
>  :isDescribedBy
>    .
> 
> So the solution is to introduce a URI convention (assigning meaning to
> the convention) and use a central service to implement this feature.

It is *a* solution -- not necessarily *the* solution.  And if you don't
want it centralized, there are ways to get around that also, which I
discussed in 2005:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0057.html 

> 
> 
> so if the toucan were denoted by the URI
> http://t-d-b.org/?http://example/toucan-page
> the you know that its description is located at
> http://example/toucan-page
> and there is no need to actually dereference the other URI.
> 
> And to expect consumers of the URI to also understand and honor that
> convention.
> 
> That sure looks|sounds to me like a new URI scheme.

It is not a URI scheme as defined in RFC 3986:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986
It is conceptually similar in that it can define its own conventions and
semantics.  However, the key point is that it is *layered* on the good
old http scheme.  Thus, if you click on this URI:

  http://t-d-b.org/?http://dbooth.org/2005/dbooth/ 

it works, with no changes needed to your browser.  In contrast, if you
click on this URI:

  tdb:http://dbooth.org/2005/dbooth/

You get an error.

-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

2010-11-04 Thread Kingsley Idehen

On 11/4/10 4:00 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:

Pretty much +1.
Of course, being a Good Citizen of the LOD Community, I have always done
the 303 thing (or hash), as recommended in the relevant docs, even if not
mandated. This was despite the fact that I disagreed that it was worth the
candle, compared with many of the more pragmatic, and social issues that
are being raised here.
A community as small as ours (still) is can ill afford to have splintering.

But I do find myself wondering whether things have changed since that
decision was made, but certainly sufficient time has passed to review it,
and there have been some changes out there since.

By the way, on my travels as a LD consumer, I do find a lot of LD that
does just do 200 - arrived just a little while ago:
curl -i -H "Accept: application/rdf+xml"
http://www.uk-postcodes.com/postcode/AB101AA
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...

Hugh,

Let's pass the URL: (Ian:
I am not speaking Turtle I want the Link to work with all kinds of email
clients that support hyperlinks) through URI Debugger [1].

1.
http://linkeddata.informatik.hu-berlin.de/uridbg/index.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uk-postcodes.com%2Fpostcode%2FAB101AA&useragentheader=&acceptheader=
-- tell me nothing, HTTP response headers tell an HTTP User
agent nothing. It tell me (Human) "Get this information as XML
, CSV
, JSON
or RDF
" (hopefully the
hyperlinks remain intact re. XML, CSV, JSON, and RDF resource URLs)

2.
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/id/entity/http/www.uk-postcodes.com/postcode/AB101AA
-- shows that semantically, we have a triple based on "sioc:links_to"
relation that connects the HTML page to various resource types (RDF,
CSV, XML, JSON)

3.
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/www.uk-postcodes.com/postcode/AB101AA.rdf
-- show an empty page since there isn't a triple connecting the RDF
resource to its content (no real-world sensory equivalent of
distinguishing the Canvas from the Painting, the Data in the Graph Paper
from the actual Graph Paper)

4.
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/ode/?uri%5B%5D=http%3A%2F%2Flinkeddata.uriburner.com%2Fabout%2Fid%2Fentity%2Fhttp%2Fwww.uk-postcodes.com%2Fpostcode%2FAB101AA.rdf&;
-- clicked the ODE link in the footer of empty page since ODE is an RDF
data browser, it projects the graph pictorial carried by the RDF document

5.
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uk-postcodes.com%2Fpostcode%2FAB101AA%23ddd9fd92559e0657db00c4e60c49f344c98c6dcc8-ge_1&sid=8829&urilookup=1
-- because of the HTTP GET in #2 data was still written to the backend
RDF store/dbms, so a descriptor page can still be generated.

** I know at first blush you might assume this to be a demonstration of
OpenLink technology, if so please find a way to put that aside ** Lets
look at a number of things in play here:

1. The description of a Postcode was persisted to a Document
2. The Document was published to the Web
3. The Document Address became the focal point of the Web contribution
4. The Document has unambiguously Identified Subjects (using an HTTP URI
based Names)
5. The Document contains no metadata that semantically associates its
Subjects
6.
http://linkeddata.informatik.hu-berlin.de/uridbg/index.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uk-postcodes.com%2Fpostcode%2FAB101AA%23ddd9fd92559e0657db00c4e60c49f344c98c6dcc8-ge_1&useragentheader=&acceptheader=
-- verifying #5
7. http://bit.ly/bV1rsY -- alternative to #6 using same tool but passing
URL of the descriptor generated by our Sponger (what's behind
URIBurner), notice how it closes the loop by adding the missing metadata
in a myriad of way that includes HTML+RDFa.

To conclude, is this URL:
, what you regard as the
best practice? If so how, can this be? If the data doesn't effectively
describe itself to Humans and Machines without the middleware heuristics
demonstrated by our Sponger?

Ultimately, we come back to relative and subjective ambiguity. That will
never go away, but deductively constructing context is a practical
solution that's 100% palatable with the ingenuity that belies Web
Architecture. IMHO.

Links:

1. http://linkeddata.informatik.hu-berlin.de/uridbg/index.php
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document -- What is a Document?

Hugh

On 04/11/2010 19:04, "Harry Halpin" wrote:

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Ian Davis wrote:

On Thursday, November 4, 2010, Nathan wrote:

Please, don't.

303 is a PITA, and it has detrimental affects across the board from
network load through to server admin. Likewise #frag URIs have there
own set of PITA features (although they are nicer on the network and
servers).

69 matches

Mail list logo