- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:23:54 -0400
- To: "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "James Leigh" <james@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: "Hugh Glaser" <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-lod community" <public-lod@w3.org>
Perhaps the issue could be reframed as "how can the rest of us compensate for the shortsightedness of publishers?". For example, imagine a server that publishes a URI with this conflated assertion: <http://example.org/Jane_Austen> (200 OK) <http://example.org/Jane_Austen> a <http://schema.org/Person> . Those of us in-the-know could de-conflate this by a convention if there was an official statement such as: Document URIs that get conflated with entity URIs can be referred to by convention by appending a #document hash. Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeni Tennison [mailto:jeni@jenitennison.com] > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 3:49 PM > To: James Leigh > Cc: Hugh Glaser; public-lod community > Subject: Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14 > > James, > > On 23 Mar 2012, at 19:23, James Leigh wrote: > > I am not saying everyone should care to distinguish them (real data > will > > always be dirty), but using the same identifier for both the person > and > > the document should not be the recommended approach. > > > Absolutely. Where in the Change Proposal do you think it says > otherwise? I'd be glad to clarify it. > > Jeni > -- > Jeni Tennison > http://www.jenitennison.com > >
Received on Friday, 23 March 2012 23:30:05 UTC