AW: "How to Publish Linked Data" vs "Dereferencing HTTP URIs"

Hi Christopher,

> Q1) Should HtPLDotW be updated to remove references to
>  "Dereferencing HTTP URIs" in favor of "Cool URIs for the
>  Semantic Web"

Yes. The HtPLDotW document is from 2007 and urgently needs updating.
We are planning to do this during the summer, so expect a new version in
fall.

Up till then you might consider
http://tomheath.com/papers/bizer-heath-berners-lee-ijswis-linked-data.pdf as
a more recent reference.

Cheers,

Chris


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: public-lod-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lod-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag
von Christopher St John
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Juli 2009 07:07
An: public-lod@w3.org
Betreff: "How to Publish Linked Data" vs "Dereferencing HTTP URIs"

I'm putting together a quick presentation on 303s and
Linked Data for the local Dallas Semantic Web Meetup
(it's part of a series of 10-minute lightning presentations)

I've got a couple of questions. They start out nitpicky
and pedantic (but I have some more entertaining ones
for later)

So, to start out with nitpicking: I've been reviewing the
various references, and noticed that

 "Dereferencing HTTP URIs"
 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/HttpRange-14.html

appears in "How to Publish Linked Data on the Web".
But the latest version of "Dereferencing" is empty, with
a note that indicates that it's been abandoned in favor of:

 "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
 
https://gnowsis.opendfki.de/repos/gnowsis/papers/2006_11_concepturi/html/coo
luris_sweo_note.html

HtPLDotW also points to the 2006/11 version of CUftSW (albeit
at a different URL), but that version is an old draft. The newest
version is at:

 http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/

which is better (being at w3.org) but has language that indicates
that it is "just" a Note, and is not expected to become a
Recommendation.

So...

 Q1) Should HtPLDotW be updated to remove references to
 "Dereferencing HTTP URIs" in favor of "Cool URIs for the
 Semantic Web"

 Q2) The "Note" vs "Recommendation" thing is formal spec
 speak and may not mean what it appears to mean.
 Can someone comment? The wording "This is a draft
 document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted
 by other documents at any time" in a Linked Data foundation
 document is fine if you're just experimenting, but could
 be alarming if you're considering, say, writing a commercial
 tool...

I did a (relatively quick) archive search but I could have
easily missed a discussion somewhere, apologies if this
has already been gone over. And thanks for your patience
with the geeky spec details.

-cks

-- 
Christopher St. John
cks@praxisbridge.com
http://praxissbridge.com
http://artofsystems.blogspot.com

Received on Friday, 10 July 2009 06:16:22 UTC