- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:57:00 -0500
- To: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>
- Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Nov 10, 2010, at 5:41 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >>> Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >>>> In the interest of clarification, the reason that some of us >>>> advocate >>>> *not* putting several resources in one file using fragments is >>>> that it >>>> then becomes difficult to serve (standard web) pages that give only >>>> information about one resource, because the server doesn't see the >>>> fragment id. >>> Yes, if you want one thing described per file, then describe one >>> thing per >>> file, if you want two things described per file, then don't be >>> surprised >>> when that file describes two things, rather than one. >> Not that we disagree, but I wanted to point out that it isn't "you" >> the author who we are concerned about surprising. It is the >> consumer - >> the person who goes to see what the resource means. To my mind, >> anything more than one resource described in a response will likely >> confuse someone you don't want to confuse (the customer). > > Alan, > > This is all very conflated, I'm quite sure you're not suggesting > that virtually every ontology, every page of comments, every > specification, every page of products, or search results, or indeed > any page on the web which describes more than one thing (and uses > fragments) confuses someone you don't want to confuse - or are you?? > Nope. I'm saying that if a client has an identifier the referent of which they know nothing about, and they put it in a browser, and they get back a page about several things, then there is a (not unlikely) possibility that they will not know which thing that identifier refers to. Many URI's refer to regular web pages, and in those cases, when you get a web page, you aren't surprised. > Perhaps then if we say, that smashing every single w3c spec in to > one document is not a good idea, but having one spec which describes > a few different concepts, is perfectly fine. You miss the point. If you have an identifier that is supposed to mean an iPhone, and you put it in a browser and get a page that shows an iPhone and a bunch of accessories, then you may think that the URI refers to an iPhone and a bunch of accessories rather than an iPhone. You have to remember that the situation that has to be planned for is that the client knows *nothing* about the URI means before getting back the page. The advise to use fragments often is not given along with the caveats. This leads to situations like the one I mention. And there are a lot of them. Regards, Alan > > I personally have faith that people usually will have enough brain > power to manage their data in some reasonable way, and not stick > 200+M descriptions in a single file, or have 200+M files with 2 > lines each. The M refers to megabytes by the way. I guess 3 orders of magnitude fewer descriptions. Not that it matters but I wanted to set that straight. > > Best, > > Nathan >
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 23:57:44 UTC