Re: Fwd: Practical issues arising from the "null relative URIs"-hack

On 4/1/14 8:19 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Also, I think the risks are quite bounded, because this design is 
> attached to the current three LDP containers.   That is, this decision 
> only applies if you're dealing with one of three particular classes of 
> resource (ldp:BasicContainer, ldp:DirectContainer, and 
> ldp:IndirectContainer).  Personally, frankly, I expect 5 years from 
> now all three of those containers will be considered obsolete.   We're 
> really just starting to figure out LDP, and my sense is several 
> details of how those containers are defined will be problematic, once 
> we have some more experience.   But for now, they're good enough to 
> move forward a bit, and as we learn more we can define new and better 
> ones. 

I struggle to understand why one would design with inevitable 
obsolescence in mind. Seriously now, if this was the basis of AWWW where 
would the Web be today?

One thing I do agree with though is simply this: any spec that boils 
down to poorly derived compromises of AWWW is doomed for obsolescence, 
and that will occur in less than 5 years.

If a spec isn't implemented by anyone, or a tiny minority, in the 
context of the Web it is basically as good as obsolete, IMHO.


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen