Re: [foaf-protocols] Redirects continued -- was: Problem with certificate on home-grown WebID

On 12/22/11 4:37 AM, Henry Story wrote:
> The problem with XRIs is that they require a big infrastructure to get 
> going. We already have HTTP so we can get going there with some 
> limitations, but with tools everybody understands. 
We have URIs.

HTTP scheme URIs has the ubiquity of the InterWeb so its a nice low cost 
scheme for bootstrapping InterWeb scale Linked Data.

HTTP isn't understood by everyone. If it was we wouldn't have the 
HttpRange-14 imbroglio that's been raging on forever, amongst other things.

A data publisher can opt to make any URI scheme de-referencable, it just 
requires work on the part of the publisher. It also requires existence 
of user agents that grok URI abstraction re. functional ecosystem.

"big infrastructure" is a FUD phrase. Just like "security issues" is a 
FUD phrase. If you want to make those kinds of claims why not 
substantiate them or include links to reference material?

The Architecture of the World Wide Web (AWWW) is "deceptively simple". 
It solves a serious problem via elegant design. Trouble is, many 
misunderstand this design by trying to fight wars that boil down to 
adding specificity to something that's implicitly dexterous.

AWWW is about *choice* via separation of powers.

*Freedom of Choice* is non negotiable if you want to deliver technology 
that scales in a world that's naturally heterogeneous.

-- 

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