W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2009

Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation

From: Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:33:37 +0200
Message-ID: <89f622f10906281533y5b1ee0e4ka6641578271a3cda@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, bill.roberts@planet.nl, public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Hi Richard,

2009/6/25 Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>:

<snip/>

> (On the value of content negotiation in general: I think the key point is
> that any linked data URI intended for re-use, when put into a browser by the
> average person interested in linked data publishing, MUST return something
> human-readable. That's a hard requirement, otherwise people will never be
> confident about what a particular URI means and hence they won't re-use.
> That was the thinking behind the Cool URIs note when Leo and I wrote it a
> few years ago. In the past, the only way to get that effect was with content
> negotiation, so even though content negotiation is a pain, it's what we had
> to do. In the present, we have an alternative thanks to RDFa.

Not disagreeing at all about the human readable requirement, but just
a question... in this scenario you describe, is there not a risk that
Joe User will enter that URI and come to the conclusion that it
identifies the document (or section thereof), rather than a thing
described in the document?

Interested in your thoughts :)

Tom.
Received on Sunday, 28 June 2009 22:34:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:21 UTC