- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:31:14 -0400
- To: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
- CC: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4CD43F62.5070307@openlinksw.com>
On 11/5/10 5:28 AM, Leigh Dodds wrote: > Hi, > > On 4 November 2010 18:42, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >> Nobody ever mandated 303 redirection. > I've never encountered anyone in the community that has recently > advocated (i.e. since the httpRange-14 discussion) or any > documentation that promotes anything other than using # URIs or the > 303 redirect approach. > > So in the circumstance where someone doesn't want to use a # URI, what > options are available? Can point to a document that illustrates an > alternate approach? It's not really choice if there's only one option. > > You also frequently cite dbpedia as the de facto standard model for > publishing Linked Data. This uses the 303 pattern, giving further > prominence to that approach. > >> It has always been an option, and so it should remain. > But if there are other options that have a better mix of advantages > and dis-advantages to the two that the community has promoted thus > far, then we should include those too. > > Cheers, > > L. > Leigh, Unfortuantely, I missed this mail yesterday. Anyway, bearing in mind current state of dialog, I don't have an issue with any solution that's mutually inclusive relative to existing 303 practices. So yes, re. inclusion. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 17:31:45 UTC