From RFC 2068 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1:
10.4.5 404 Not Found
The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI. No indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or permanent.
If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, the status code 403 (Forbidden) can be used instead. The 410 (Gone) status code SHOULD be used if the server knows, through some internally configurable mechanism, that an old resource is permanently unavailable and has no forwarding address.
Error 404--Not Found
Error 404--Not Found
From RFC 2068 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1:
10.4.5 404 Not Found
The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI. No indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or permanent.
If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, the status code 403 (Forbidden) can be used instead. The 410 (Gone) status code SHOULD be used if the server knows, through some internally configurable mechanism, that an old resource is permanently unavailable and has no forwarding address.
The knowledge assessmentBy Julie Bort Network
World, 12/25/00 Analysts place failure rates of knowledge management systems
at between 20% and 50% of all projects implemented. Keeping your
project from becoming such a statistic means understanding how
ready your people are to accept this technology. Enter the knowledge
assessment, sometimes called a knowledge audit, says Steve Gillespie,
knowledge manager for Sun's Educational Services' knowledge management
practice in Broomfield, Colo.
A knowledge audit entails interviewing target users to find out
what's going on in their heads. Where is the knowledge being created,
how is it being created and how is it being used? Then ask the
same questions about your databases and document stores.
Through this process, you might learn that knowledge is being
created during in-person meetings, after which everyone e-mails
their notes around. Then, everyone stores independent versions
on hard drives, adding notes to their own copies and scheduling
more meetings to share the revised notes, setting off the cycle
again. Ultimately, this process results in a new product, service
or customer contract. If follow-up meetings were eliminated, this
would save anywhere from days to weeks of the cycle.
Gillespie also recommends you determine whether the knowledge
is relevant to a specific business objective. This will help you
cost-justify the necessary software.
You'll also want to check to see that the knowledge is being
created accurately. Are people actually using the knowledge once
it is created (important for databases and documents)? On the
technology side, is the technology available to support and ease
this process?