Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-25 Thread Gannon Dick
From: Seth Russell To: Pat Hayes Cc: Kingsley Idehen ; "public-lod@w3.org" ; "public-...@w3.org" ; "public-we...@w3.org" ; "dbpedia-discuss...@lists.sourceforge.net" Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:53 AM Subject: Re: Important Ch

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-25 Thread Seth Russell
"You can't actually get referents from HTTP protocols: for that, you have actually read (and understand) the documents that specify the referents." -- Pat Hayes I am sure that is true for some value of "You" and some value of "get". But can not some automated process actually "get" that which it u

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-25 Thread Kingsley Idehen
On 3/25/13 5:18 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote: Excerpts from Pat Hayes's message of 2013-03-25 04:12:37 +: On Mar 24, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: All, Here is a key HTTP enhancement from Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content note from IETF [1]. " 4.

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-25 Thread Kingsley Idehen
On 3/25/13 4:42 AM, Mo McRoberts wrote: On Sun 2013-Mar-24, at 17:39, Kingsley Idehen wrote: All, Here is a key HTTP enhancement from Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content note from IETF [1]. " 4. If the response has a Content-Location header field and its

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-25 Thread ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
Excerpts from Pat Hayes's message of 2013-03-25 04:12:37 +: > > On Mar 24, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > > > All, > > > > Here is a key HTTP enhancement from Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): > > Semantics and Content note from IETF [1]. > > > > " > > 4. If the respo

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-25 Thread Mo McRoberts
On Mon 2013-Mar-25, at 09:07, Erik Isaksson wrote: > So Content-Location provides a "more specific identifier", which I > don't think helps us with avoiding 303. Anyway, personally, I think > we're along the right track here. Well, it can do. it depends if you're trying to differentiate two thi

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-25 Thread Erik Isaksson
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Mo McRoberts wrote: > On Sun 2013-Mar-24, at 17:39, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > >> All, >> >> Here is a key HTTP enhancement from Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): >> Semantics and Content note from IETF [1]. >> >> " >> 4. If the response has a Content-Loca

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-25 Thread Mo McRoberts
On Sun 2013-Mar-24, at 17:39, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > All, > > Here is a key HTTP enhancement from Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): > Semantics and Content note from IETF [1]. > > " > 4. If the response has a Content-Location header field and its > field-value is a reference to

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread Kingsley Idehen
On 3/25/13 12:12 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: On Mar 24, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: All, Here is a key HTTP enhancement from Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content note from IETF [1]. " 4. If the response has a Content-Location header field and its fi

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread Pat Hayes
On Mar 24, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > All, > > Here is a key HTTP enhancement from Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): > Semantics and Content note from IETF [1]. > > " > 4. If the response has a Content-Location header field and its > field-value is a reference t

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread Kingsley Idehen
On 3/24/13 2:47 PM, Barry Norton wrote: On 24/03/13 18:42, Kingsley Idehen wrote: We need more options to solve this kind of politically-elastic problem. Right, so you're saying there are motivating applications for this solution where existing approaches wouldn't work? Can you specify them

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread Kingsley Idehen
On 3/24/13 2:28 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: Wouldn't the real world entity identifier get confused with the content-negotiable generic document identifier (genericResources-53)? The latter use case should also uses the Content-Location header. If a user agent receives HTTP metadata that includes

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread Barry Norton
On 24/03/13 18:42, Kingsley Idehen wrote: We need more options to solve this kind of politically-elastic problem. Right, so you're saying there are motivating applications for this solution where existing approaches wouldn't work? Can you specify them clearly? Barry

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread Kingsley Idehen
On 3/24/13 2:26 PM, Barry Norton wrote: On 24/03/13 18:23, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 3/24/13 1:59 PM, Barry Norton wrote: On 24/03/13 17:52, Richard Cyganiak wrote: On 24 Mar 2013, at 17:39, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Thus, if a client de-references the URI

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread Young,Jeff (OR)
Wouldn't the real world entity identifier get confused with the content-negotiable generic document identifier (genericResources-53)? The latter use case should also uses the Content-Location header. Jeff Sent from my iPad On Mar 24, 2013, at 2:20 PM, "Kingsley Idehen" wrote: > On 3/24/13 1:

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread Kingsley Idehen
On 3/24/13 2:05 PM, David Wood wrote: On Mar 24, 2013, at 13:52, Richard Cyganiak wrote: On 24 Mar 2013, at 17:39, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Thus, if a client de-references the URI and it gets a 200 OK from the server combined with

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread Barry Norton
On 24/03/13 18:23, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 3/24/13 1:59 PM, Barry Norton wrote: On 24/03/13 17:52, Richard Cyganiak wrote: On 24 Mar 2013, at 17:39, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Thus, if a client de-references the URI and it gets a 200 OK from the serve

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread Kingsley Idehen
On 3/24/13 1:59 PM, Barry Norton wrote: On 24/03/13 17:52, Richard Cyganiak wrote: On 24 Mar 2013, at 17:39, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Thus, if a client de-references the URI and it gets a 200 OK from the server combined with

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread Kingsley Idehen
On 3/24/13 1:52 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: On 24 Mar 2013, at 17:39, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Thus, if a client de-references the URI and it gets a 200 OK from the server combined with in the Content-Location res

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread David Wood
On Mar 24, 2013, at 13:52, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 24 Mar 2013, at 17:39, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> Thus, if a client de-references the URI >> and it gets a 200 OK from the >> server combined with in the >>

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread Barry Norton
On 24/03/13 17:52, Richard Cyganiak wrote: On 24 Mar 2013, at 17:39, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Thus, if a client de-references the URI and it gets a 200 OK from the server combined with in the Content-Location resp

Re: Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread Richard Cyganiak
On 24 Mar 2013, at 17:39, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Thus, if a client de-references the URI > and it gets a 200 OK from the > server combined with in the > Content-Location response header, the client (user agent)

Important Change to HTTP semantics re. hashless URIs

2013-03-24 Thread Kingsley Idehen
All, Here is a key HTTP enhancement from Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content note from IETF [1]. " 4. If the response has a Content-Location header field and its field-value is a reference to a URI different from the effective request URI, then the s