W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 10:12:48 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD3D8A0.4060603@webr3.org>
To: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
CC: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Leigh Dodds wrote:
> Hi,
> On 4 November 2010 17:51, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> But, for whatever reasons, we've made our choices, each has pro's and
>> cons, and we have to live with them - different things have different
>> name, and the giant global graph is usable. Please, keep it that way.
> I think it's useful to continually assess the state of the art to see
> whether we're on track. My experience, which seems to be confirmed by
> comments from other people on this thread, is that we're seeing push
> back from the wider web community -- who have already published way
> more data that we have -- on the technical approach we've been
> advocating, so looking for a middle ground seems useful.

fully agree :)

> Different things do have different names, but conflating IR/NIR is not
> part of Ian's proposal which addresses the publishing mechanism only.

This is really simple - forget about your data, the proposal and all of 
that, if you can GET a URI (all slash URIs) then something somewhere 
will say <uri> a :Document (not much of a problem), then describe what 
it's about (bigger problem). With 303 the odds are 50/50 that they'll 
pick the correct uri to treat as a document, with 200 the odds are 0/100 
that they'll pick the correct uri to treat as a document.

What's the point in you saying:

   </toucan> a :Toucan; :describedBy </doc> .

If the rest of the world is saying:

   </toucan> a :Document; :primaryTopic ex:Toucan .

Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 10:14:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:10 UTC