- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:30:46 -0400
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > In all honesty though, the thing I really don't get the most, is why? for > who's benefit are we doing this? which new-comer to the semantic web and > linked data is going to be confused if we say "yeah, we use URLs to talk > about things on the web like web pages and rdf documents, just like > everybody else on the web"? Why all the soft-lining on this and why are we > making up special rules that only certain people in specific contexts with > special machinery will understand? It seems to hinge on the claim that # isn't an acceptable approach - not even the suffix # or suffix #_ approaches that support scalable namespaces. That's the key point (together with the less interesting claim, that many hosting services don't let you deploy a 303) in the Harry/Manu/Ian argument for <u> = WS(u) a.k.a. retracting the httpRange-14 resolution and its consequent 'special rules'. And while I don't understand it, my ears are wide open to hearing it explained. I say we put the issue-57 document out there ASAP and then listen respectfully to what people have to say about it. My idea now is to just leave the <u> = WS(u) idea vague and explain that we haven't been able to figure out how it would work in practice but are happy to hear design ideas. Pat, if you're listening, can you explain why # isn't the answer to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Nov/0029.html ? Jonathan
Received on Saturday, 19 March 2011 03:31:18 UTC