Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)

bill.roberts@planet.nl wrote:
> Hi Nathan - thanks for clear answer. I see the point and also the argument for using hash URIs with ontologies.

Most welcome, and glad it helped :)

> In practice how I get round this prob is to preload my triple store with the handful of common ontologies I know I'm going to use, so don't need to deref them as I go along.

Snap, however the big caveat is that as soon as I followed the paradigm 
a bit further and hit client side applications which use the web as a 
data tier (read write web of linked data) where typically you just 
leverage HTTP caching, and where a triple store isn't particularly ideal 
(or even needed) the importance of these things became somewhat more 
noticeable.

I have to say, that if I hadn't taken this move, then I probably 
wouldn't be quite as passionate as I am about these things. Linked Data 
should (must?) be HTTP friendly, and slash URIs for both ontologies and 
"data" are most definitely not, even to deal with foaf with the current 
303's you need to hard code rules around it, or embed the ontology in 
your application (in js code!).

Give it some time and I'm sure it won't just be a handful of us shouting 
OMG that was a mistake and a half.

Best,

Nathan

Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 13:24:21 UTC