Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On 2012-03 -25, at 11:38, Norman Gray wrote:

> 
> Michael and all, greetings.
> 
> On 2012 Mar 25, at 14:19, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps the default IR assumption be saved by saying that a 200 URI <X> is a 
>> IR as long as we don't find some triple at X that suggests otherwise. Why not a
>> NIR class ? If the concept of IRs/NIRs is sufficiently unambiguous to talk
>> about it in natural language (I think it is), we can talk about it in RDF.
> 
> I confess I haven't kept fully up with the details of this suddenly rampant thread, but this suggestion is the one I associate with Ian Davis back in the 'Is 303 really necessary?' thread of November 2010 (that long ago!?).
> 
> One can characterise this as 'httpRange-14 is defeasible', or, as a procedure:
> 
> vvvv
> After a client has extracted all of the 'authoritative' statements about a resource X, which is retrieved with a 200 status, it rfc2119-should add the triple 'X a eg:InformationResource', unless this would create a contradiction.
> ^^^^
> 
> Why would this create a contradiction?  The resource X might explicitly say that it is a eg:NonInformationResource; it might be declared to be a eg:Book, which is here or elsewhere declared to be subClassOf eg:NonInformationResource; or X might be in the domain or range of a property which indicates that it is a non-IR, such as for example :describedBy.

This doesn't work as the Books are Information Resources.
For example, 

<http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2372108&pageno=11> is a book, and 

<http://www.amazon.com/Moby-Dick-whale-ebook/dp/B002RKRU9A/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1332692284&sr=8-2>
is a page about a book,
<http://www.amazon.com/Why-Read-Moby-Dick-ebook/dp/B0052RERYQ/ref=sr_1_10?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1332692336&sr=1-10>

is a page about a book "Why Read Moby-Dick?" about a book "Moby Dick".

They are all IRs.

(Not useful to  talk about NIRs.  The web architecture does not. Now does Jonathan's baseline, not HTTP Range-14.  Never assume that what an IR is about is not itself a IR.)

	____________________


HOWEVER, the basic idea of giving a way of the server making it
explicit that the URI identifies not the document but is subject, without the internet round-trip time of 303,
is a useful path to go down.

If Ian Davis and co would be happy with it, how about a header

	200 OK
	Document:  foo123476;doc=yes

which means "Actually the URI you gave is not the URI of a this document,
but the URI of this document is  foo123476.html (a relative URI).

- This is the same as doing a 301 to foo123476.html and returning the same content.
- Non-data clients will ignore it, and just show users the page anyway.
- Saves the round trip time of 301
- Avoids having the same URI for the document and its subject.

This will dismantle HTTP range-14 a bit more, but still never give the same
URI to two things.  It would mean code changes to my client code and just a reconfig
change to Ian's server. 

Tim

Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 16:36:04 UTC