Issues on HTTP RFC 2616, and proposed resolutions for inclusion in a future RFC2616bis ()

Pat Hayes | 2 Aug 2009 15:54

Picon

Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:41 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Pat Hayes wrote:
>> ...
>> hope I do not misrepresent anyone here.) Apparently, therefore, two  
>> people both quite expert in reading the HTTP spec do not interpret  
>> the phrase "requested resource" in the same way, leaving me and I  
>> suspect others in a state of complete confusion. ...
>
> We have multiple issues open with respect to cleaning up that  
> terminology. I would recommend to delay any new discussion until  
> we're done with that (which *should* be the -08 versions of the  
> drafts).

OK, great. Sorry if my insistence on this point has caused needless  
feather ruffling. For the record, let me outline the case that raises  
the central issue. No need to reply.

1.   http://example.com:8080/people/richard_cyganiak  identifies  
Richard Cygniak, the actual human being.
2.   A GET request on http://example.com:8080/people/richard_cyganiak   
resolves to some HTTP endpoint (server, whatever; I'm not sure of the  
right terminology here. I mean, the network entity which functionally  
handles the request and emits an HTTP response, and whose behavior is  
governed by the HTTP specs. I gather that this may not be identical  
with the http:resource (information resource) associated with it: the  
latter may lie just behind the endpoint, which constitutes an  
"interface" to it. (?))
3.  There is an information resource, R, at this endpoint. (Again, I'm

(Continue reading)

Tim Berners-Lee | 2 Aug 2009 21:54

Picon

Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other


On 2009-08 -02, at 09:54, Pat Hayes wrote:

>
> On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:41 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> ...
>>> hope I do not misrepresent anyone here.) Apparently, therefore,  
>>> two people both quite expert in reading the HTTP spec do not  
>>> interpret the phrase "requested resource" in the same way, leaving  
>>> me and I suspect others in a state of complete confusion. ...
>>
>> We have multiple issues open with respect to cleaning up that  
>> terminology. I would recommend to delay any new discussion until  
>> we're done with that (which *should* be the -08 versions of the  
>> drafts).
>
> OK, great. Sorry if my insistence on this point has caused needless  
> feather ruffling. For the record, let me outline the case that  
> raises the central issue. No need to reply.
>
> 1.   http://example.com:8080/people/richard_cyganiak  identifies  
> Richard Cygniak, the actual human being.
> 2.   A GET request on http://example.com:8080/people/ 
> richard_cyganiak  resolves to some HTTP endpoint (server, whatever;  
> I'm not sure of the right terminology here. I mean, the network  
> entity which functionally handles the request and emits an HTTP  
> response, and whose behavior is governed by the HTTP specs. I gather  
> that this may not be identical with the http:resource (information

(Continue reading)

Pat Hayes | 4 Aug 2009 17:30

Picon

Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other


On Aug 2, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

>
> On 2009-08 -02, at 09:54, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:41 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>>> Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> hope I do not misrepresent anyone here.) Apparently, therefore,  
>>>> two people both quite expert in reading the HTTP spec do not  
>>>> interpret the phrase "requested resource" in the same way,  
>>>> leaving me and I suspect others in a state of complete  
>>>> confusion. ...
>>>
>>> We have multiple issues open with respect to cleaning up that  
>>> terminology. I would recommend to delay any new discussion until  
>>> we're done with that (which *should* be the -08 versions of the  
>>> drafts).
>>
>> OK, great. Sorry if my insistence on this point has caused needless  
>> feather ruffling. For the record, let me outline the case that  
>> raises the central issue. No need to reply.
>>
>> 1.   http://example.com:8080/people/richard_cyganiak  identifies  
>> Richard Cygniak, the actual human being.
>> 2.   A GET request on http://example.com:8080/people/ 
>> richard_cyganiak  resolves to some HTTP endpoint (server, whatever;

(Continue reading)

Ian Davis | 6 Aug 2009 02:37

Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Pat Hayes<phayes <at> ihmc.us> wrote:
> Hmm, but why would they not be able to use it? Seems to me that if we can
> get our various storys straight, then this possibility is not only workable
> but might be quite useful. Imagine there is some elaborate Web ontology
> linked data service thing which uses 303 redirection on a whole range of
> URIs it treats as denoting external entities, a thing along the lines of
> DBpedia. But it also has a URI of its own, one that identifies it, and to
> which it responds with a nicely designed, informative web page explaining
> its history and how to use it and so forth. LIke DBpedia, in fact. Seems to
> me that we should be able to say that this thing is a resource, and that it
> can be described in just this way. Yes, it has a 200-codable representation
> of itself, which it can deliver when you GET the appropriate URI, but it
> also handles a large number of other URIs using 303 redirection, conformant
> with http-range-14. One thing, one resource (or maybe one HTTP
> endpoint/server), does all of this. Why not? It seems more natural to say
> that about DBpedia than to have to say that DBpedia is not one thing but
> thousands of different things, one for each URI it redirects.

I don't think dbpedia is thousands of things. There is a website that
answers requests for information about thousands of things.

In fact, being pedantic I should ask you to properly define what you
mean when you refer to dbpedia. Do you mean the database of facts
derived from wikipedia dumps, the project to create that database, the
team that undertakes the project, the website that provides access to
the database or possibly the domain name dbpedia.org?

BTW http://dbpedia.org/resource/DBpedia appears to be a URI for the
project and http://dbpedia.org/resource/DBpedia_Team seems to be a URI
for the team.

(Continue reading)

Pat Hayes | 6 Aug 2009 16:47

Picon

Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other


On Aug 5, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Ian Davis wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Pat Hayes<phayes <at> ihmc.us> wrote:
>> Hmm, but why would they not be able to use it? Seems to me that if  
>> we can
>> get our various storys straight, then this possibility is not only  
>> workable
>> but might be quite useful. Imagine there is some elaborate Web  
>> ontology
>> linked data service thing which uses 303 redirection on a whole  
>> range of
>> URIs it treats as denoting external entities, a thing along the  
>> lines of
>> DBpedia. But it also has a URI of its own, one that identifies it,  
>> and to
>> which it responds with a nicely designed, informative web page  
>> explaining
>> its history and how to use it and so forth. LIke DBpedia, in fact.  
>> Seems to
>> me that we should be able to say that this thing is a resource, and  
>> that it
>> can be described in just this way. Yes, it has a 200-codable  
>> representation
>> of itself, which it can deliver when you GET the appropriate URI,  
>> but it
>> also handles a large number of other URIs using 303 redirection,  
>> conformant
>> with http-range-14. One thing, one resource (or maybe one HTTP
>> endpoint/server), does all of this. Why not? It seems more natural

(Continue reading)

Larry Masinter | 16 Aug 2009 20:51

Picon

RE: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other


> In fact, being pedantic I should ask you to properly define what you
> mean when you refer to dbpedia. Do you mean the database of facts
> derived from wikipedia dumps, the project to create that database, the
> team that undertakes the project, the website that provides access to
> the database or possibly the domain name dbpedia.org?

> BTW http://dbpedia.org/resource/DBpedia appears to be a URI for the
> project and http://dbpedia.org/resource/DBpedia_Team seems to be a URI
> for the team.

I've been thinking of a way of describing the ambiguity of
reference that a single URI represents, as far as the "resource"
it identifies.... that the main ambiguity is in the scope.

The URI doesn't identify the "boundary" of the resource, just
a single "point of contact" or "surface of contact". If  a
resource has extent, then the identification doesn't cover the
scope.

If you think of resources as sets of points, then
the "identification"  from URI to Resource is to a single
or subset of the points.

URI      -(identifies) ->  contact points -- (subset of) --> resource

So you could say that, for DPPedia the project and the team and the
organization and the whole site and the whole site today
and the whole site last year and the home page ... well
they were all subset resources of "DBpedia".

(Continue reading)

Larry Masinter | 3 Aug 2009 21:16

Picon

"Document", "Resource", "Representation", recommended reading

With regard to the word "Document", I'd like to
recommend as background reading:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1559706481
Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age
by David Levy

since the much of thought behind it informs a lot of my own
thinking about the nature of "Document", "representation", 
"Resource" and the like.  

Larry
--

-- 
http://larry.masinter.net

Alan Ruttenberg | 4 Aug 2009 03:30

Picon

Re: "Document", "Resource", "Representation", recommended reading

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Larry Masinter<masinter <at> adobe.com> wrote:
> With regard to the word "Document", I'd like to
> recommend as background reading:
>

I'll have a look, but pending that, could you share some of what you
think the essential points are?

Thanks,
Alan

>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1559706481
> Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age
> by David Levy
>
> since the much of thought behind it informs a lot of my own
> thinking about the nature of "Document", "representation",
> "Resource" and the like.
>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
>
>

Alan Ruttenberg | 4 Aug 2009 07:07

Picon

Re: "Document", "Resource", "Representation", recommended reading

So I've purchased the book and started working through it a bit, and
something comes to mind. In the second chapter (where I've ended for
the moment) we have an offer for the definition of "document"

"Documents are exactly those things we create to speak for us, on our
behalf and in our absence."

Now one of the things I do when I'm working developing ontologies, as
a kind of wedge to make sure we aren't fooling ourselves into thinking
we're done, is ask the question of some definition - what are things
that are not this? And if we find this is difficult to do, we know
there is a problem. So I would ask that you also consider that
question.

It seems that with this definition we have now possibly subsumed all
of artistic  endeavor under the name "document".  And if that's the
case I don't think that's great progress. For one thing it does
disservice to a whole lot of other words we've developed "dance"
"song" "sculpture" "fiction" - all of these are "documents" now.
Secondly it dilutes the meaning of "document" so much that there is
little that we know about something if all we know is that it is a
"document".

Maybe some of this is modified in the rest of the book - I'll keep on reading.

-Alan

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Alan Ruttenberg<alanruttenberg <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Larry Masinter<masinter <at> adobe.com> wrote:
>> With regard to the word "Document", I'd like to

(Continue reading)

Nick Gall | 15 Jul 2009 01:25

Picon

RE: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

A url referring to the entire digital contents of the library of congress?

-- Nick (sent from my mobile phone)

-----Original Message-----
From: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg <at> gmail.com>
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes <at> ihmc.us>
Cc: "Jonathan Rees" <jar <at> creativecommons.org>; "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding <at> gbiv.com>; "Julian
Reschke" <julian.reschke <at> gmx.de>; "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg <at> w3.org>; www-tag <at> w3.org
Sent: 7/11/09 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Pat Hayes<phayes <at> ihmc.us> wrote:
>
> On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:03 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding<fielding <at> gbiv.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That's because you happen to be reading it differently than
>>> what I was thinking when I wrote it.  The sentence is a bit
>>> ambiguous if you don't pay attention to what the second "that"
>>> means.  If it is reordered to say
>>>
>>>  A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the server does
>>>  not have a transferable representation

What does "transferable" add to representation?
Would it be possible for someone to give an example of an
*un*transferable representation?

(Continue reading)

Chimezie Ogbuji | 11 Jul 2009 16:56

Picon

Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

> Not as far as HTTP is concerned. HTTP is just a transfer protocol. The
> HTTP world is really simple:
> I repeat: For the operation of the HTTP protocol, IT DOES NOT MATTER
> what exactly a resource is and what the exact relationship between
> resources and representations is. All these matters of denotation,
> information resources and so on are introduced by higher layers of the
> architecture.

Well said.  I myself don't understand the motivation for trying to
have the protocol dictate denotation (they have nothing to do with
each other)
and it seems more than a bit of stretch to suggest that interactions
in the protocol determine RDF denotation (or at least the class
of thing being denoted).  In fact, I don't even see the value in doing
so when there are other better-suited mechanisms for determining how
the RDF is interpreted (RDFS, OWL, OWL2, etc..)

> Yes, it would be useful to provide guidance to publishers about how
> best to model their information space as resources and
> representations. But this is out of scope for the HTTP protocol. The
> HTTP protocol kicks in AFTER the publisher has made up their mind
> about what resources they have and wether they have representations or
> not.

Id further add that if the RDF being consumed does not need (HTTP)
representations of its referents in order for
a machine to understand the intent of the publisher then the HTTP
protocol has nothing to
with any of this.

(Continue reading)

Return

Return to gmane.ietf.http-wg.

Advertisement

Project Web Page

Issues on HTTP RFC 2616, and proposed resolutions for inclusion in a future RFC2616bis ()

Search Archive

Language

Change language

Options

Current view: Threads only / Showing only 20 lines / Not hiding cited text.
Change to All messages, whole messages, or hide cited text.

Post a message
NNTP Newsgroup
Classic Gmane web interface
XML

XML

RSS Feed
List Information

About Gmane