- From: Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:39:39 +0200
- To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
- Message-Id: <B9C5AEFD-B04E-4BCB-84A3-0BD1DAE82F7E@gmail.com>
hi all, I am hearing on the grapevine that it would be beneficial to add a few words about "why" I2 should care about a HTTP, Linked Data approach. There seems to be a lack of understanding of the possible value. Cheers Herbert On Jul 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:52 AM, William Waites > <william.waites@okfn.org> wrote: >> On 10-07-30 10:38, Jodi Schneider wrote: >>> "The URI should be included in the final version of the metadata" >>> >>> Is it useful to make some reasons clear? i.e. to explain why it is >>> "a >>> valuable addition to the standard"? Or is that already clear to the >>> NISO I2 working group? >> >> How about: >> >> "Dereferencing the URI with an HTTP request is the simplest and most >> straightforward way to obtain a copy of the metadata" > > +1 > >> >> On URI vs. URL, does it make sense at all to suggest the >> registration of >> a urn namespace with IANA? Or do non-dereferenceable URIs like that >> just >> muddy the waters? > > In a linked data perspective, I guess we should advocate strongly in > favor of a dereferenceable URI approach. > > Emmanuelle > > >> >> Cheers, >> -w >> >> -- >> William Waites <william.waites@okfn.org> >> Mob: +44 789 798 9965 Open Knowledge Foundation >> Fax: +44 131 464 4948 Edinburgh, UK >> >> RDF Indexing, Clustering and Inferencing in Python >> http://ordf.org/ >> >> > > > > -- > ===== > Emmanuelle Bermès - http://www.bnf.fr > Manue - http://www.figoblog.org > == Herbert Van de Sompel Digital Library Research & Prototyping Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/ tel. +1 505 667 1267
Received on Saturday, 31 July 2010 09:57:14 UTC