AwwswHome/DraftReport

From W3C Wiki
< AwwswHome
Revision as of 22:54, 23 November 2009 by DavidBooth (Talk)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


AwwswHome

Towards Formal HTTP Semantics - AWWSW Report to the TAG

Authors: Jonathan Rees, David Booth, Alan Ruttenberg, Michael Hausenblas

Note: content will be moved to http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/http-semantics-report.html

Index

Intro: RFC2616, TimBL's historical review of URI/HTTP semantics development

Motivation (Michael)

Contributor: Harry

Content: Why are we doing this? What are the use cases, potential applications etc.

A Selection of HTTP Ontology Terms (Jonathan)

Contributor: Harry

Possibles Interpretations of the HTTP Ontology Terms (Jonathan)

Contributor: David, Harry

Cafeteria Approach

RDF Assertions for HTTP Status Codes

This section proposes a set of RDF assertions corresponding to various HTTP response codes defined in RFC2616. It attempts to answer the question: "When a client receives a response from an HTTP server in response to a request, what is that server saying (in RDF) about the associated resource?" On 17-Nov-2009 we agree to focus on the following codes: 200, 201, 204 (lower priority), 205 (very low priority), 206 (low priority), 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 400, 404, 409, 410, 500.

We may want to cover this at more than one level of granularity.  For example, we might provide one set of rules that includes the server in the model and another simpler set that ignores the server. -- DBooth

200

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.1

201

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.2

204 (lower priority)

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.5

205 (very low priority)

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.6

206 (low priority)

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.7

300

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.3.1

301

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.3.2

302

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.3.3

303

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.3.4

304

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.3.5

307

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.3.8

400

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.4.1

Did we include this one by accident?  I don't think we need to cover it.  -- DBooth

404

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.4.5

409

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.4.10

410

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.4.11

500

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.5.1

Discussion and Related Work (Michael)


BRAINSTORMING: Potential sections

What is an Information Resource?

Meanings of HTTP response codes

List of Terms

AwwswGenericResource

AwwswNoodlingDiagrams http://w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/http.owl

(i) discovery/LRDD, 

(ii) list existing/related vocs

(iii) motivation/application

HTTPbis

ErrataHttpRange14 jar: This might better belong with TAG issue 57, since the TAG has to deal with that item. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57