AwwswHome/DraftReport
Contents
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.
- Validation
- Debugging
- Access log analysis
- Semantic Web applications
- HTTP server optimizations (?)
- more
A Selection of HTTP Ontology Terms (Jonathan)
Contributor: Harry
- AwwswNoodlingDiagrams
- http://w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/http.owl
- David's analysis
- HTTP status codes semantics
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)
- IAO
- IRW (Harry)
- HTTP in RDF
- AwwswGenericResource
- Discovery/LRDD, Discovery TR
- relation to HTTPbis
- HTTPrange-14 FAQ
- Vapour, a Linked Data validator
BRAINSTORMING: Potential sections
What is an Information Resource?
Meanings of HTTP response codes
List of Terms
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
