- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:04:07 -0400
- To: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
- Cc: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org
On 2011-06 -17, at 08:51, Ian Davis wrote: >>> If you use HTTP 200 for something different, then >>> you break my ability to look at a page, review it, and then >>> express my review in RDF, using the page's URI as the identifier. >> >> Not quite. It is saying that you can't give a review for my >> http://foobar.gov.uk/datasets/population web page because the RDF >> returned by the URI says it denotes a dataset not the web page. You can >> still review the dataset itself. You can review other web pages which >> don't return RDF data saying they are something other than a web page. >> >> [As an aside, I would claim that most reviews are in fact about things - >> restaurants, books, music - not about the web pages.] >> > > Quite. When a facebook user clicks the "Like" button on an IMDB page > they are expressing an opinion about the movie, not the page. BUT when the click a "Like" button on a blog they are expressing they like the blog, not the movie it is about. AND when they click "like" on a facebook comment they are saying they like the comment not the thing it is commenting on. And on Amazon people say "I found this review useful" to like the review on the product being reviewed, separately from rating the product. So there is a lot of use out there which involves people expressing stuff in general about the message not its subject. I am really not sure that I want to give up the ability in my browser to bookmark a page about something -- the IMDB page a about a movie, rather than the movie itself. When the cost os just fixing Microdata syntax to make it easy to say things about the subject of a page. Tim
Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 13:05:02 UTC