- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 02:14:28 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, public-lod@w3.org, Christopher Gutteridge <cjg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
On 14 June 2011 10:49, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > On 13 Jun 2011, at 20:51, David Booth wrote: >>> <http://richard.cyganiak.de/> >>> a foaf:Document; >>> dc:title "Richard Cyganiak's homepage"; >>> a foaf:Person; >>> foaf:name "Richard Cyganiak"; >>> owl:sameAs <http://twitter.com/cygri>; >>> . >> >> That should be fine for applications that do not need to distinguish >> between foaf:Documents and foaf:Persons . . . which is a large class of >> applications. OTOH, there *are* applications that need to distinguish >> between foaf:Documents and foaf:Persons. *Those* applications will need >> to apply disambiguation techniques, and some of their owners will >> (wrongly) blame you for the perceived "extra" work it causes them -- >> "extra" only because they happen to be implementing a different class of >> application than your data best supports. > > Yes, good analysis. Not sure I'm comfortable with the notion of data being published with a predetermined class of consuming applications. The bottom lines are: publish what you want, interpret how you see fit. Somewhere between Postel and Aleister Crowley. My comments on httpRange-14 could not be any less relevant to the reality, I'd just rather things were kinda tidy rather than swept under the carpet (at home I have dog fur on the tiles). Yes, I do think if we can have some approximation of a consistent common model, that is better for communication. But it's pretty much a certainty that the best course of action is to live with whatever comes up and make the best of it. Build on what we can. Cue cliche "if history has taught us anything..." Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 00:14:56 UTC