See also: IRC log
writing email to http-wg about GET...
i'll be on phone in about 2 minutes
201 CREATED only meaningful with PUT
or maybe POST?
use case: How one would use RDFa to express the choices provided in a 300 response?
i.e. 300 responses currently have to be parsed manually - there's no standard way to express choices
issue: how to express what 301 ways. We have URIs A and B, one obvious option is <A> owl:sameAs <B>.
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-1 - How to express what 301 ways. We have URIs A and B, one obvious option is <A> owl:sameAs <B>. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2007/awwsw/tracker/issues/1/edit .
another option to invent a relationship relating <A> and <B>... that would be useless
the only other information is that the URI "B" is preferred to the URI "A"
that is something we say about the URIs, not about the resources.
<dbooth> The right option may depend on one's desired granularity of modeling.
[a ht:UriPreference; ht:lessPreferred "A"^^xsd:anyURI; ht:morePreferred "B"^^xsd:anyURI.]
"The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any
future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned
302 The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI.
We don't know what a "residence" is.
We have target = A, redirect to B
What is the relation between <A> and <B>?
issue: What is a "residence"? (302)
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-2 - What is a "residence"? (302) ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2007/awwsw/tracker/issues/2/edit .
I wanted to say: You can use the URI "B" to get information about the resource <A>.
Stuart disagreed, he said that the "identifies" relation is what changes over time.
an interpretation of the URIs in a graph is most useful when it's consistent, i.e. one URI/one resource
so if you want to use <A> in an RDF graph, you need to develop a theory of that resource (a set of Correspondences, etc.) that's resilient to the vagaries of all the 302s you'll get over time
that's why I see 302 and 307 as ways to get additional evidence of the nature of <A>
and <B> is really irrelevant
<B> will have its own theory.
my theory is that the entity you get from GET "B" corresponds to <A>
if it didn't, why would the server be telling you to do GET "B"?
If GET "A" -> 302 "B", and GET "B" -> 200 E, then E corresponds to both A and B (at the present time)
both <A> and <B>
http spec determines cachability of the 302 response
later, the 302 may have expired, and B's representations no longer correspond to A
this is how I think "resides at" *has* to be interpreted, to produce useful RDF.
"useful" = in conjunction with existing RDF & OWL semantics
307 is the same as 302 AFAIK... 307 means "I mean 302 as speced, not as usually implemented, which is like 303"
RESOLUTION: we will use httpbis 10/26 draft for reference, not RFC 2616
<dbooth> David: That sounds good for 302.
I really don't agree with: "A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the requested resource
does not have a representation of its own that can be transferred by
the server over HTTP."
the word "can" is the hedge word
scribe: but then how is "can" different from "doesn't"?
So GET "A" -> 303 "B" becomes <A> powder:describedBy <B>
which is what my shell script does
IAO has its own "is about" relation
<dbooth> IAO = Information Artifact Ontology, a big effort in OBO foundry
<dbooth> David: That looks good for 303 also.
304 asserts additional information (holdsUntil) on a previously known Correspondence
C toRepresentation R. C heldAt T1. 304 => C heldAt T2.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) FAILED: i/Writing/Topic: Draft Report Succeeded: i/writing email/Topic: Draft Report Succeeded: s|i/Writing/Topic: Draft Report|| No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: jar_ Inferring Scribes: jar_ Default Present: DBooth, +1.781.643.aaaa, jar Present: Jonathan_Rees David_Booth WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list! Regrets: michael Got date from IRC log name: 24 Nov 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/11/24-awwsw-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]