W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs"

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:30:46 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTim73wwo0DNPOOxyDr-ffkmB3dkHQOnP=Si5JpEW@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> In all honesty though, the thing I really don't get the most, is why? for
> who's benefit are we doing this? which new-comer to the semantic web and
> linked data is going to be confused if we say "yeah, we use URLs to talk
> about things on the web like web pages and rdf documents, just like
> everybody else on the web"? Why all the soft-lining on this and why are we
> making up special rules that only certain people in specific contexts with
> special machinery will understand?

It seems to hinge on the claim that # isn't an acceptable approach -
not even the suffix # or suffix #_ approaches that support scalable
namespaces. That's the key point (together with the less interesting
claim, that many hosting services don't let you deploy a 303) in the
Harry/Manu/Ian argument for <u> = WS(u) a.k.a. retracting the
httpRange-14 resolution and its consequent 'special rules'. And while
I don't understand it, my ears are wide open to hearing it explained.
I say we put the issue-57 document out there ASAP and then listen
respectfully to what people have to say about it. My idea now is to
just leave the <u> = WS(u) idea vague and explain that we haven't been
able to figure out how it would work in practice but are happy to hear
design ideas.

Pat, if you're listening, can you explain why # isn't the answer to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Nov/0029.html ?

Received on Saturday, 19 March 2011 03:31:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:09 UTC