- From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:03:53 +0200
- To: Mark Wilkinson <markw@illuminae.com>
- CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Michel_Dumontier <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Benjamin Good <goodb@interchange.ubc.ca>, Natalia Villanueva Rosales <naty.vr@gmail.com>
Mark Wilkinson wrote: > My understanding is that the 303 could only > redirect the agent to a single alternative URI. Am I wrong? You can either use the Accept header the client sent to choose the most appropriate representation to redirect to, or you can generate a proper response with a list of links instead of returning a Location header? > [...] we don't even know what the Semantic Web will look like! Hmmm... My guess is like the Web, but with more machine readable data? :-) > I honestly feel we are limiting our > vision if we begin this journey with the perception of the SW as a set > of SPARQL endpoints, or a set of URIs that we want to be able to type > into our browsers. That may be the first step, and a way to bootstrap > it, but surely it's more than that. Semantic Web crawlers and browsers are two very interesting applications that are already starting to surface. Both seem to work better with URLs! > Those of us who use LSIDs use them for a reason. Likely, that reason is > that they solve the atypical problems that we are faced with, in an > elegant and standards-body-approved manner. I suspect that what is now > atypical will become the norm as the SW comes to fruition, so burning > bridges too early in the process is surely destructive...?? What's that > they say about premature optimization? > > I'm all for a hybrid solution - there's no need to use LSIDs in every > case, but there seems to be a need to use them in *some* cases. Well, this isn't a discussion whether to outlaw LSIDs... yet :-)
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 17:05:18 UTC