[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oslc-core] 'Compacts' link and use of 'Prefer' request header
> From: Martin P Pain <martinpain@uk.ibm.com> > To: oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org > Date: 03/20/2014 06:52 AM > Subject: [oslc-core] 'Compacts' link and use of 'Prefer' request header > Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> > > I won't be available for the beginning of today's Core meeting (due to the > clock change causing a conflict for me), but I have some comments to contribute: > > 1. Version 18 of the draft for the 'Prefer' request header [1] states > "implementors ... SHOULD NOT use the Prefer header mechanism for content > negotiation". It seems to me that we would be using this for content > negotiation. (Not that I have a better suggestion, it still sounds better to > me than using Content-Type). > That is true if what we are doing is considered the same resource. I believe what we are saying is there are 2 resources, and always have, THE resource and the related Compact resource. > 2. Secondly, I've come across the idea in other RDF/semantic web writings of > using one URI to identify a resource and a different URI to identify the > document (informational resource(?)) that describes it (if the main resource > is not itself the information resource describing itself) . e.g. this is > mentioned in [2]. This is something I noticed did not seem to be addressed > or mentioned in OSLC 2.0, in particular with the compact representation. > If we add this 'compacts' link then I presume it would link from the URI for > the informational resource for the compact document to the URI for the > resource that has been "compacted"? > See above statement, though perhaps it would be valuable to make sure a) we all agree with this and b) be clear about it upfront in the spec. > e.g. in response to this GET request: > > GET /resource1 HTTP/1.1 > Host: example.com > Accept: text/turtle > Prefer: compact > > There would be something like this response: > > HTTP/1.1 200 OK > Content-Type: text/turtle > Vary: Prefer, Accept > Content-Location: /resource1.compact.ttl > > @prefix oslc: <...>. > @prefix dcterms: <...>. > > <http://example.org/resource1.compact.ttl> > oslc:compacts <http://example.org/resource1>; > . > > <http://example.org/resource1> > dcterms:title "Resource 1"; > oslc:shortTitle "1"; > oslc:icon "http://example.org/resource.png"; > . > > > Is my understanding of what is being suggested correct? (If not, what is the > subject & object of the 'compacts' link ). > This not what I believe is what is being proposed, more along the lines of: @prefix oslc: <...>. @prefix dcterms: <...>. <http://example.org/resource1.compact.ttl> a oslc:Compact; dcterms:title "Resource 1"; oslc:shortTitle "1"; oslc:icon "http://example.org/resource.png" ; oslc:compacts <http://example.org/resource1> . This is doing an implicit "redirect" response though and can be thought of as some form of conneg I guess. If we had the proposed 209 response code, we might suggest it be used here. Though mandating, or evening suggesting, a 303 would kill the proposal as it would introduce another roundtrip. Does it need to be more complicated than this? Thanks, Steve Speicher IBM Rational Software > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-18#page-6 > [2] Section 2.3 "Making URIs defererenceable" in: Heath, T., Bizer, C. (2011) > Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space. Morgan & Claypool. > Retrieved from http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/#htoc11 > > Martin Pain > Software Developer - Green Hat > Rational Test Virtualization Server, Rational Test Control Panel > Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration - Automation WG joint chair > > E-mail: martinpain@uk.ibm.com > Find me on: [image removed] and within IBM on: [image removed] > > [image removed] > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited > Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]