Re: 200 OK with Content-Location might work

Hi John,

On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 15:12 +0000, John Sheridan wrote:

> However, three points from my perspective:
> 
> 1) debating fundamental issues like this is very destabilising for those
> of us looking to expand the LOD community and introduce new people and
> organisations to Linked Data. To outsiders, it makes LOD seem like its
> not ready for adoption and use - which is deadly. This is at best the
> 11th hour for making such a change in approach (perhaps even 5 minutes
> to midnight?).

+1

> 2) the 303 pattern isn't *that* hard to understand for newbies and maybe
> even helps them grasp LOD. Making the difference between NIRs and IRs so
> apparent, I have found to be (counter-intuitively) a big selling point
> for LOD, when introducing new people to the paradigm. Let's not be too
> harsh on 303 - it does make an important distinction very clear for new
> adopters and, in my experience, it seems to be an approach new people
> grok quite quickly and easily.

-0.5

People grok the point of normal 30x for redirection, you can have nice
stable URIs but implement them from unstable organizations. 

Tying them up with NIR v. IR, especially since no one has a clear cut
way of distinguishing IR/NIR, is a problem at least in my experience. 
In our work on local authorities self-publishing URIs/descriptions this
issue was a significant barrier.

[Though I'm not certain the current outcome (use content-location) helps
that much for that case.]

Dave

Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 09:32:56 UTC