- From: Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:38:31 +0000
- To: giovanni.tummarello@deri.org
- Cc: Knud Hinnerk Möller <knud.moeller@deri.org>, public-lod@w3.org
2009/3/19 Giovanni Tummarello <g.tummarello@gmail.com>: > The only reason to mint resolvable URIs is to allow fetching of a description > > i'd say that minting in other's people spaces is really calling for > troubles and should be discouraged? one should, could, possibly put > "sameas" if some URI exists somewhere else. Giovanni, relax :) We all know that we shouldn't arbitrarily mint URIs in namespaces we don't control, which is why I'm checking this out with Knud, who attached the condition that we ensure the data is actually uploaded in the end. > honestly? i dont even see the reasonw hy to copy this data on dogfood! > the entire point about semanti cweb is to be able to use data that's > distributed. Agreed, although I do think there are some advantages to replicating the data at the dogfood server, some of which have been outlined by Knud and Daniel. Think of the dogfood server as a cache (would the issue disappear if Knud crawled the data and loaded it into the store compared to be sending him a dump?), or a domain specific semantic browser ;) Looking at the bigger picture, I think before we start saying that any particular strategy is bad we need to gather *much* more data and experience on good and bad practices. A couple of days ago there was a thread where Rob was reporting on the strategy we've taken in a particular Talis product, that involves providing all the data in the RDF description of a resource that may be required to build the corresponding HTML page; Richard stated that this was the right thing to do. I can see the appeal of this strategy, but is this not a smaller-scale instance of the same problem of data duplication and proliferation? I'm not saying that I have an answer, or even have an opinion one way or the other; all I am saying is that it's early days still and we don't know enough yet about which strategies work well and when. Let's not dismiss things out of hand. > copying will only create wrong duplicates once you change a bit of the > data, e.g. correct the spelling of my last name in the page. Sorry for the typo with your name. AFAICT I've changed all the incorrect instances of this. If you spot any more after a hard page refresh just let me know :) > if its one source, then fine, the source is changed and its indexed > again if it has been copied.. everybody loses, i'd say :-) Or I send Knud a new dump which he loads in place of the other one ;) Is there really a difference? It's pretty hard for me to make any sense of the discussion that follows from here, but it seems that the best thing to do is this: I'll mint URIs in the ldow2009 namespace for papers, authors, chairs and pc members, and sameAs them to the corresponding URIs in the dogfood namespace. That way every need is addressed, right? Cheers, Tom.
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 19:39:16 UTC