Re: Should specifications take sides in the httpRange-14 debate?

On 11/21/12 6:39 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Work continues within the TAG on this issue [1].  On current course
> and speed, I expect hash URIs will be just fine.  My personal take on
> the likely TAG position is that no community of practice with respect
> to URI use on the Semantic Web can or will be declared to be
> "losers".  The goal of the current work is to foster interoperability,
> not mandate a single "winner".
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> ht
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html

FWIW -- for those of you that want to define a WebID  in a manner that 
contradicts the position above.

An architecture spec isn't about optimization. Engineering deals with 
optimization. A technical spec isn't supposed to teach engineering or 
shoehorn engineering decisions.

If anyone is serious about solving this issue. Simply call a vote. I 
would be really interested to see how many real Linked Data 
practitioners support the proposal for WebIDs being hash based HTTP URIs 
while also trying to reconcile that back to TimBL's Linked Data meme as 
its architectural foundation.

You don't pick winners (if you can help it), since you ultimately always 
alienate the losers.

-- 

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