- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:36:52 -0400
- To: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
- Cc: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>, "tom.heath@talis.com" <tom.heath@talis.com>, Yang Squared <yang.square@gmail.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com> wrote: > So, can we turn things on their head a little. Instead of starting out > from a position that we *must* have two different resources, can we > instead highlight to people the *benefits* of having different > identifiers? That makes it more of a best practice discussion and one > based on trade-offs: e.g. this class of software won't be able to > process your data correctly, or you'll be limited in how you can > publish additional data or metadata in the future. > > I don't think I've seen anyone approach things from that perspective, > but I can't help but think it'll be more compelling. And it also has > the benefits of not telling people that they're right or wrong, but > just illustrate what trade-offs they are making. > > Is this not something we can do on this list? I suspect it'd be more > useful than attempting to categorise, yet again, the problems of hash > vs slash URIs. Although a canonical list of those might be useful to > compile once and for all. > > Anyone want to start things off? Sure. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/09/referential-use.html > As a leading question: does anyone know of any deployed semantic web > software that will reject or incorrectly process data that flagrantly > ignores httprange-14? Tabulator.
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 17:37:20 UTC