W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

From: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 16:06:57 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=pSgaxWUxVRf=3wAKVt=cqxNh9H3nS37CLeoZa@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> I don't presume. I prefer to use terms that are familiar with the
>> people on this list who might be reading the message. Introducing
>> unnecessary capitalised phrases distracts from the message.
>
> Again, you presume. Capitalization might not work for you, but you are not
> the equivalent of an entire mailing list audience. You are one individual
> entitled to a personal opinion and preferences.
>

I hope you agree i have the freedom to express those opinions.


>>
>>> Anyway, translation:
>>>
>>> What's the problem with having a variety of methods for using LINKs to
>>> associate a "Non Information Resource" with an "Information Resource"
>>> that
>>>  describes it (i.e., carries its structured representation)? Why place an
>>> implementation detail at the front of the Linked Data narrative?
>>
>> It's already at the front, and as I say in my post it's an impediment
>> to using Linked Data by mainstream developers.
>
> I don't believe its already at the front. I can understand if there was some
> quasi mandate that put it at the front. Again, you are jumping to
> conclusions, then pivoting off the conclusions to make a point. IMHO: Net
> effect, Linked Data concept murkiness and distraction. You are inadvertently
> perpetuating a misconception.

Thank you for your opinion. I don't believe I am jumping to conclusions.

>>
>> There is. I find it surprising that you're unaware of it because it's
>> in all the primary documents about publishing Linked Data.
>
> Please provide a URL for the document that establishes this mandate. I know
> of no such document. Of course I am aware of documents that offer
> suggestions and best practice style guidelines.

Here is one cited by Leigh just now: http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/

Also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html

And http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/

>
>>
>>>>> The only thing that should be mandatory re. Linked Data is this:  HTTP
>>>>> based
>>>>> Entity Names should Resolve to structured Descriptors that are Human
>>>>> and/or
>>>>> Machine decipherable.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that requesting a URI should return a description
>>>> document?
>>>
>>> Resolve to a Descriptor Document which may exist in a variety of formats.
>>> Likewise, Descriptor documents (RDF docs, for instance) should clearly
>>> identify their Subject(s) via HTTP URI based Names.
>>>
>>> Example (in this example we have 1:1 re. Entity Name and Descriptor for
>>> sake
>>> of simplicity):
>>>
>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paris>  -- Name
>>> <http://dbpedia.org/page/Paris>  -- Descriptor Resource (HTML+RDFa) this
>>> resource will expose other representations via<head/>  (<link/>  + @rel)
>>> or
>>> "Link:" in response headers etc..
>>
>> Not sure what you are trying to say here. I must be misunderstanding
>> because you appear to be claiming that
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paris>  is a name but
>
> That is a Name via HTTP URI (using its Name aspect).

This is an interesting distinction between the resource and a name.
Can you restate it in a new thread so we don't add noise to the 303
discussion

>
>
>> I don't really see what relevance this all has to the issue of 303
>> redirection though. We are all agreed that things are not usually
>> their own descriptions, we are discussing how that knowledge should be
>> conveyed using Linked Data.
>
> Of course, my comments are irrelevant, off topic. If that works for you,
> then good for you. You spent all this time debating an irrelevance.

That looks like a natural close to this particular part of the debate then.

>
> FWIW - 303 is an implementation detail, RDF is an implementation detail, and
> so is SPARQL. When you front line any conversation about the concept of
> Linked Data with any of the aforementioned, you are only going to make the
> core concept incomprehensible.



Ian
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:07:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:51 UTC