- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:31:18 +0100
- To: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>
- Cc: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
Michael, On 25 Mar 2012, at 11:03, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:13:09AM +0100, Jeni Tennison wrote: >> I agree we shouldn't blame publishers who conflate IRs and NIRs. That is not what happens at the moment. Therefore we need to change something. > > Do you think semantic web projects have been stopped because some purist > involved did not see a way to bring httprange14 into agreement with the > other intricacies of the project ? Those purists will still see the new > options that the proposal offers as what they are: Suboptimal. What would be optimal in your view? > Or do you think some purists have been actually blaming publishers ? What will > stop them in the future to complain like this: Hey, your website consists > solely of NIRs, I cannot talk about it! Please use 303. Nothing. In fact TimBL has already said this [1], and Jonathan has pointed out what such people will have to do to make those kinds of statements [2]. This is already listed as a disadvantage in the proposal. I recognise it's a disadvantage, I just think it is worth the hit compared to the advantages of the change. > You are solving the problem by pretending that the IRs are not there then > the publisher does not make the distinction between IR and NIR. No, I am just proposing stopping pretending that the NIR is not there, which is what is mandated by the current httpRange-14 design. > Maybe we can optimize the wording of standards and best practise guides to > something like "these are the optimal solutions. Many people also do it this > way but this has the following drawbacks..." Yes, as I argued here [3] I strongly believe that casting the separation of IR and NIR as a best practice rather than a vital necessity is the right way to go. Cheers, Jeni [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2012Mar/0143.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2012Mar/0144.html [3] http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/159 -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 11:31:44 UTC