Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On 23 March 2012 15:35, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2012, at 14:05, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
>> 2012/3/23 Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>:
>>> I dont think, even the wildest optimist, could have predicted the success of
>>> the current architecture (both pre and post HR14).
>>
>> The votes of confidence are interesting to me, as I have not been
>> hearing them previously. It does appear we have a divided community,
>> with some voices feeling that 303 will be the death of linked data,
>> and others saying hash and 303 are working well. Where the center of
>> gravity lies, I have no way of telling (and perhaps it's not important
>> as long as any disagreement, or even ignorance, remains). As Larry
>> Masinter said at the last TAG telcon, things do not seem to be
>> converging.
>
> I'm sure many people are just deeply bored of this discussion.

No offense intended to Jeni and others who are working hard on this,
but *amen*, with bells on!

One of the things that bothers me most about the many years worth of
httpRange-14 discussions (and the implications that HR14 is
partly/heavily/solely to blame for slowing adoption of Linked Data) is
the almost complete lack of hard data being used to inform the
discussions. For a community populated heavily with scientists I find
that pretty tragic.

Tom.

P.S. Apologies if this repeats comments later in the thread than
Steve's post; the novelty of agreeing with Kingsley still isn't enough
to convince me to read the rest ;) Sad but true.

-- 
Dr. Tom Heath
Senior Research Scientist
Talis Education Ltd.
W: http://www.talisaspire.com/
W: http://tomheath.com/