Re: A proposal involving my original reason for commenting on httpRange-14

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> What does http://graph.facebook.com/117527568273199 identify?
>
> I think the first few paragraphs of
> https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/api/ answer that
> question pretty well.
>

And much clearer than Kingsley's post. I have to admit that the amount
of jaron per minute in Kingsley's posts makes them hard to read. I'm
not sure if this is due to terminological confusion in the community
or just personal idiosyncrasies. Ditto most of the conversation around
httpRange-14. I'd recommend speaking in a easy-to-understand ordinary
language - *only* using technical terms when needed to make a
distinction.

On a larger note, the Linked Data community could do a lot better by
paving the cowpaths here of Facebook (and also looking at APIs from
Google's Freebase) rather than going off into
design-by-commitee/academic paper-writing mode. However, I agree that
Linked Data is a particular "language game" invented by TimBL and so
we should ask TimBL for his opinion on "loosening" the rules of the
game a bit.

My fear is that the W3C-branded Linked Data might, if over-constrained
to RDF/XML+303+conneg, end up basically being overtaken by industry
here, just as SGML was overtaken by XML. That's my only point, mundane
engineering, not philosophy believe it or not. Although my
philosophical position is that we should give people flexibility and
not force a priori categorization of the world besides the minimal
needed for successful communication (co-ordination of collective
action).


> //Ed
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:38:36 UTC