- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:30:21 +0100
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <swlists-040405@champin.net>
- Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 13 Apr 2010, at 18:04, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > 2/ Given a URI, a software should not try to reverse-engineer it. > However, the axiom does not prevent that a software be given a > *rule* to > *produce* new URIs. > > As a matter of fact, I would be surprised that TBL would discourage > this > very mechanism which underlies all HTML-based forms (at least those > using the GET method). A form is nothing else than the specification > of > a *whole set* of URIs, plus the technical tool to produce them > easily in > your browser. Didn't read this before writing my own response -- well said! Cheers, Richard > > > pa > > [1] http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm > [2] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#opaque > > On 13/04/2010 17:11, Robert Sanderson wrote: >> A quick question... >> >> 2010/4/13 Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>: >> >>> I've found it very valuable to formally declare the pieces from >>> which >>> an URI is to be composed of. Especially in our environment where we >>> have a central design of the URI:s, but decentralized publishing of >>> data (which is of a somewhat rich and varied nature). >> >> >> How does this mesh with URIs being opaque? If the URIs were actually >> opaque and treated as such, then formally declaring the parts would >> be >> a non-issue. It seems that this ideal is being increasingly watered >> down or ignored... is that intentional, and is it a good or bad >> thing? >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Rob Sanderson >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 17:30:56 UTC