Re: Middle ground change proposal for httpRange-14

Hi David,

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 6:50 PM, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> *sigh*.  I said recently that I would rather chew my arm off than re-engage with http-range-14.  Apparently I have very little self control.
>
> On Mar 25, 2012, at 11:54, David Booth wrote:
>> Jeni, Ian, Leigh, Nick, Hugh, Steve, Masahide, Gregg, Niklas, Jerry,
>> Dave, Bill, Andy, John, Ben, Damian, Thomas, Ed Summers and Davy,
>>
>> I have drafted what I think may represent a middle ground change
>> proposal and I am wondering if something along this line would also meet
>> your concerns:
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/UriDefinitionDiscoveryProtocol
>>
>
>> Highlights of this proposal:
>> - It enables a URI owner to unambiguously convey any URI definition to
>> an interested client.
>
> +1 to this.  I have long been a fan of unambiguous definition.  The summary argument against is Leigh Dodd's
> "show what is actually broken" approach and the summary argument for is my "we need to invent new ways to associate RDF
> with other Web resources in a discoverable manner to allow for 'follow-your-nose' across islands of Linked Data."

I may be misreading you here, but I'm not against unambiguous
definition. My "show what is actually broken" comment (on twitter) was
essentially the same question as I've asked here before, and as Hugh
asked again recently: what applications currently rely on httprange-14
as it is written today. That useful so we can get a sense of what
would break with a change. So far there's been 2 examples I think.

That's in contrast to a lot of publisher data (but granted, not yet
quantified as to how much) that breaks the rules of httprange-14. I'd
prefer to fix that even if at the cost of breaking a few apps. But we
all know there are very, very few apps that consume Linked Data today,
so changing client expectations isn't a massive problem.

Identifying a set of publishing patterns that identify how publishers
can reduce ambiguity, and advice for clients on how to tread carefully
in the face of ambiguity and inconsistency is a better starting point
IMHO. The goal there being to encourage more unambiguous publishing of
data, by demonstrating value at every step.

Cheers,

L.

Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 10:19:00 UTC