Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On 3/25/12 6:03 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
> Hello Jeni,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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..."
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Brunnbauer
>
+1

Structured Data != Linked Data.

Linked Data == Structured Data.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen