W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Q

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 00:26:40 +0100
To: <eran@hueniverse.com>, <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: <jar@creativecommons.org>, <connolly@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C5D0E650.E1EB%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

Thank you.

Patrick


On 2009-03-02 01:19, "ext Eran Hammer-Lahav" <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:

> Yes. I have already committed to doing that and will seek your review before
> the new draft is published!
>
> EHL
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 3:21 PM
>> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; julian.reschke@gmx.de
>> Cc: jar@creativecommons.org; connolly@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Q
>>
>>
>> Fair enough. I would ask, at least, that you either correct the
>> erroneous
>> statements about the shortcomings of URIQA in your draft, or remove
>> reference to URIQA entirely from your draft.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2009-03-02 01:11, "ext Eran Hammer-Lahav" <eran@hueniverse.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would really love to dispute almost every statement in this reply,
>> but this
>>> can go on forever so I'm simply going to thank you for taking the
>> time to
>>> answer, and let you have the last word, noting clearly that we
>> disagree on
>>> this topic.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> EHL
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 3:07 PM
>>>> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; julian.reschke@gmx.de
>>>> Cc: jar@creativecommons.org; connolly@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Q
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2009-03-01 22:04, "ext Eran Hammer-Lahav" <eran@hueniverse.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't need a convincing argument. You do.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I really am not interested in yet another long drawn out
>> debate
>>>> of the
>>>> same points which have been put forth in the past, since I really
>> don't
>>>> have
>>>> the bandwidth. I was originally motivated to offer some comments
>>>> (mostly
>>>> corrections) because it seemed from your draft that you (and other
>>>> "newcomers") had not understood URIQA very well, and I offer yet
>>>> additional
>>>> corrections below.
>>>>
>>>> I do not, however, intend to consume any more of my own bandwidth,
>> or
>>>> that
>>>> of the others on this distribution, as it seems, as before, to
>> simply
>>>> be a
>>>> suboptimal use of my time and energy.
>>>>
>>>> I will simply continue solving the specific technical challenges
>> that
>>>> are my
>>>> prime responsibility in the best manner possible, and if anyone else
>>>> benefits from anything I do, great. If not, cest la vie.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HTTP 1.1 is widely deployed in web servers, proxies, caches, and
>>>> clients.
>>>>> URIQA is not. The cost of getting the entire web to support a new
>>>> HTTP method
>>>>> is huge, especially for a read-access oriented method like MGET
>> which
>>>> must be
>>>>> cacheable and accessible (natively) from the most common web
>> platform
>>>> (that
>>>>> is, JS, Flash, PHP, etc.).
>>>>
>>>> There are many costs to successfully deploying semantic web
>> solutions,
>>>> and
>>>> most are not tied to server enhancements. It would be en error to
>> focus
>>>> too
>>>> narrowly on just the scope of costs associated with supporting some
>>>> additional server functionality, and disregarding the costs and
>>>> complexity
>>>> of creating, managing, and accessing formal metadata in the most
>>>> modular,
>>>> efficient, consistent, and scalable manner.
>>>>
>>>> And your assertion that "the entire web" would need to support such
>>>> additional server functionality is invalid. Only those servers which
>>>> the
>>>> owners wish to support serving of formal descriptions to semantic
>> web
>>>> agents
>>>> would need to be enhanced, and with the exception of <link>
>> elements,
>>>> the
>>>> other linking methods will require as much or more server
>> modification
>>>> and
>>>> enhancement to support a solution than adding a modular self
>> contained
>>>> URIQA
>>>> solution to the environment.
>>>>
>>>> And BTW, URIQA also alleviates the need for an explicit "host
>> metadata"
>>>> solution since one can simply execute an MGET on the server root URI
>> to
>>>> get
>>>> such "host metadata" -- Occam's Razor would support the single
>> solution
>>>> of
>>>> URIQA to numerous linking methods and special "host metadata" files.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said before, I like the concept of MGET very much. But I think
>>>> it fails
>>>>> certain requirements such as:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The ability to assign URI's to metadata. MGET doesn't help me
>> when
>>>> I want
>>>>> to express that B describes A. While B is usually used in
>> conjunction
>>>> with A,
>>>>> it is a discrete resource.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but that's not correct, and if you look at what is returned
>> by
>>>> sw.nokia.com, you'll see that every description has a distinct URI
>>>> denoting
>>>> it (separate from the request URI).
>>>>
>>>> It's not mandated by the URIQA spec to provide such a distinct URI,
>> but
>>>> is
>>>> recommended.
>>>>
>>>>> Producing a representation of a descriptor when
>>>>> that descriptor doesn't have its own URI seems like a pretty bad
>>>> violation of
>>>>> web architecture.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, but as I've noted, this is not a shortcoming of URIQA.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. It fails at multiple levels of meta. If C describes B and B
>>>> describes A,
>>>>> using MGET, all I have is a URI for A... I have no way of obtaining
>>>> C.
>>>>
>>>> Again, incorrect. Presuming that [A] is the URI denoting A:
>>>>
>>>> MGET [A] -> description of A (i.e. B), where the response is denoted
>> by
>>>> [B]
>>>> MGET [B] -> description of B (i.e. C), where the response is denoted
>> by
>>>> [C]
>>>> MGET [C] -> description of C, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Easy (and simple, and efficient, and consistent).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. I strongly disagree it complies with the Equal Access Principle
>>>> [1].
>>>>
>>>> Well, with all due respect, given the number of misunderstandings
>> you
>>>> have
>>>> clearly had about URIQA, it's hard for me to accept that your
>>>> conclusions on
>>>> any particular point are valid (they may be, but since I've not seen
>>>> sufficient comments from you indicating you actually understand how
>>>> URIQA
>>>> works and what it offers, I'm unable to give you the benefit of the
>>>> doubt).
>>>>
>>>>> In a
>>>>> previous email you listed all the issues in deploying URIQA and the
>>>>> workarounds and hacks needed to get it to work. I am unwilling and
>>>> unable to
>>>>> go on a crusade to get URIQA adopted so that the community I serve
>>>> will be
>>>>> able to use it.
>>>>
>>>> I can appreciate that position (though I think it is overstated).
>>>>
>>>> I think it depends on where you want to ultimately place the burden.
>>>>
>>>> URIQA simplifies things for creating, managing, and especially
>>>> accessing
>>>> formal metadata.
>>>>
>>>> Linking (has the illusion that it) simplifies things for the server
>>>> admins/owners (but folks will eventually find out just how much they
>>>> will
>>>> need to do to get a critical mass of adoption and use, and in the
>> end,
>>>> things would be a lot easier and cheaper with an approach such as
>>>> URIQA).
>>>>
>>>> Ultimately, the semantic web will succeed or fail based on (a) the
>> ease
>>>> with
>>>> which novel applications can be created and (b) the volume of useful
>>>> metadata.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever solution(s) become standardized (either defacto or
>> otherwise)
>>>> will
>>>> need to effectively address those points.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you read my full proposal for Link-based Resource Descriptor
>>>> Discovery [2],
>>>>
>>>> I have.
>>>>
>>>>> you'd know that none of the 3 methods proposed offer a complete
>>>> solution.
>>>>
>>>> If by "the 3 methods" you refer to the different methods of using
>>>> linking to
>>>> associate descriptions with resources, then yes, I certainly agree
>> that
>>>> they
>>>> do not offer a complete solution (not even combined).
>>>>
>>>>> That's why I have 3. Criticizing Links by picking on a single form
>> of
>>>> link
>>>>> (header, element, host-meta patterns) is pointless because the
>> first
>>>> thing I
>>>>> said in my draft is that neither one is complete.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I didn't pick on any one specifically. I think most of my
>>>> comments
>>>> apply to all three.
>>>>
>>>> And I never stated that linking was not a useful technique for
>>>> associating
>>>> descriptions with resources (and in fact, I explicitly stated the
>>>> opposite).
>>>> Rather my concern is that such techniques are not simple nor optimal
>>>> enough
>>>> for a sufficiently broad range of semantic web agents to serve as
>> the
>>>> primary standardized way that semantic web agents ask web authorites
>>>> about
>>>> resources denoted by URIs grounded in those domains. I've detailed
>>>> several
>>>> use cases which give rise to these concerns, so I won't repeat them.
>>>>
>>>> And I've pointed out those problemmatic use cases many times before,
>>>> and
>>>> proponents of alternative solutions to URIQA never step up and
>> address
>>>> them,
>>>> so I must conclude none are able to offer a reasonable account.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I studies URIQA carefully when I performed my analysis and it
>> failed
>>>> my
>>>>> requirements. So far I have not heard anything new to pursued me
>>>> otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Well, in all fairness, it doesn't appear you studied it well enough,
>>>> since
>>>> you seem to have gotten most of the key points wrong and therefore
>> your
>>>> conclusions are based on misunderstanding. I also would have been,
>> and
>>>> am,
>>>> most willing to answer any questions you might have had, or still
>> have,
>>>> about URIQA, if you truly are seeking to study the problem and all
>>>> reasonable solutions objectively.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> EHL
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2009/02/the-equal-access-
>>>> principal.html
>>>>> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
>> [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:24 PM
>>>>>> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; julian.reschke@gmx.de
>>>>>> Cc: jar@creativecommons.org; connolly@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2009-02-24 19:00, "ext Eran Hammer-Lahav" <eran@hueniverse.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll separate the two for my next draft and correct this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adding URIQA support in many hosted environments or large
>> corporate
>>>>>> deployment
>>>>>>> isn't simple. It sets a pretty steep threshold on adoption [1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've seen such comments before, but have never seen a convincing
>>>>>> argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are going to be doing "semantic web stuff" and publishing
>>>>>> metadata
>>>>>> about resources, then you are going to have to do something more
>>>> than
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> your plain out-of-the-box web server solution, both for serving
>> the
>>>>>> metadata
>>>>>> and for managing/authoring the metadata.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A "plug-in" solution like URIQA, which can be integrated into any
>>>> web
>>>>>> server
>>>>>> either by a method redirection proxy or by having the server pass
>>>>>> unsupported method requests to it, is trivially easy to add.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After all, how hard is it to e.g. add WebDAV to a web site? In
>> most
>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>> pretty trivial. No difference for an approach such as URIQA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  I actually
>>>>>>> like the MGET approach a lot, but I can't sell it to 90% of my
>> use
>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>> Consider me an extreme pragmatists...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EHL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2009/02/the-equal-access-
>>>>>> principal.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I read it, but I don't see how URIQA conflicts with your
>>>> "equal
>>>>>> access
>>>>>> principle", in fact, it seems to be quite in tune with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
>>>> [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:48 AM
>>>>>>>> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; julian.reschke@gmx.de
>>>>>>>> Cc: jar@creativecommons.org; connolly@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2009-02-24 18:18, "ext Eran Hammer-Lahav"
>> <eran@hueniverse.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both of which are included in my analysis [1] for the discovery
>>>>>>>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A few notes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The statement "Minimum roundtrips to retrieve the resource
>>>>>> descriptor:
>>>>>>>> 2" is
>>>>>>>> not correct for URIQA.  Only one is needed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> URIQA also supports self declaration. The descriptor returned
>> can
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>> include statements about the descriptor itself, though typically
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> descriptor would be a CBD by default, which would not. Still, no
>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>> it couldn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not sure why you would consider "Scale and Technology Agnostic"
>> a
>>>>>>>> negative,
>>>>>>>> since in real practice, if you have a server that is going to
>>>> offer
>>>>>>>> authoritative metadata, you have to enhance the server in some
>>>>>> manner
>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>> to insert links, etc.) so being able to modularly add a
>> component
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> doesn't intrude upon the existing core web server functionality,
>>>> but
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> operate in an auxilliary fashion, satisfying requests for
>> metadata
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>> manner not intrinsically tied to how representations are served,
>>>> is
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> plus
>>>>>>>> in my book. And solutions such as link forces content publishers
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> mint
>>>>>>>> extra URIs to identify the descriptors explicitly, when usually,
>>>>>>>> clients
>>>>>>>> don't care about the identity of the descriptor, they just want
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> metadata. So again, "technology agnostic" = "modular" in my
>> book,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>> always a plus.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps you should split URIQA from PROPFIND since your summary
>> of
>>>>>>>> PROPFIND
>>>>>>>> does not correctly capture its properties, and suggests URIQA is
>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>> equivalent, which it clearly is not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> EHL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-
>>>> 02#appendix-
>>>>>> B.2
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:45 AM
>>>>>>>>>> To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; jar@creativecommons.org;
>> connolly@w3.org;
>>>>>>>> www-
>>>>>>>>>> tag@w3.org
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Agents which want to deal with authoritative metadata use
>>>>>>>>>> MGET/MPUT/etc.
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Same with PROPFIND and PROPPATCH, btw.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BR, Julian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 23:24:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:13 GMT