- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 13:58:36 +0200
- To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi, Excuse me, but I'm not sure I understand the alternative. The goal to help data publishers meet data re-users is always here, whether we present strong unique standards of softer range of recommendations. The difference is only in the strength of what we recommend. And I think here it should be fairly obvious. If there's an area that lends itself to standardization now we should go for it, otherwise it's perfectly ok for us to be 'softer' (especially if that's the only feasible at the time we issue our recommendations). Antoine On 5/16/14 11:51 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > Hey Makx, > > personally, I think it should be (b). > > The case I commented on, ie, the CSVW version, shows the issue. I think many on the WG feel and understand that the most elegant solution would be to rely on HTTP return header: while returning the real payload of the CSV data, the return header would have some extra link through some agreed header to a metadata. (The details, ie, which HTTP header to use is a detail.) However there is a recognition that data publishers may not have the possibility to do that easily; controlling return headers require knowledge of the local server's settings, those are not standard, not easy to manage, etc. Bottom line: people will not do it. Hence the necessity (probably; as I said, this is still under discussion) of the well-known URI as an alternative. > > So yes, (b) is probably what I would favour, with the additional feature of, possibly, setting a priority (if you can do this then do it; if not then do that; etc). > > My 2 cents... > > Ivan > > > > On 16 May 2014, at 11:39 , Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote: > >> >> Ivan writes: >> >>> >>> Just a minor correction: though this is not yet decided, my >>> expectation is that the group will not define one mechanism but open >>> the door to several. This may also include the well-known location >>> approach. >>> >> >> This opinion triggers a question in my mind. I wonder whether the goal >> of DWBP is >> >> Either: >> >> a. Give advice to publishers to do things in a certain way so that >> re-users know what to expect if a publisher follows the best practice. >> >> Or: >> >> b. Outline a number of principles that publishers should apply and that >> may be implemented in various ways and that allow several existing >> approaches to co-exist. >> >> >> I am happy either way, but I think it is important to have consensus >> about the principle. >> >> Makx. >> >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > GPG: 0x343F1A3D > WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me > > > > >
Received on Friday, 16 May 2014 11:59:06 UTC