OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oslc-core message

[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]