- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:58:25 +0000
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
Kingsley Idehen wrote: > 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. Exactly, We must ask ourselves: (1) Would WebID 1.0 would ever get through to TR without 303s? (2) if it did, would the restriction be ignored by the community and toolmakers? I think the answers are clear. Best, Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 18:59:35 UTC