Re: Explaining the benefits of http-range14 (was Re: [HTTP-range-14] Hyperthing: Semantic Web URI Validator (303, 301, 302, 307 and hash URIs) )

On 10/19/11 12:59 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Aside: changing the subject line so we can have a clearer discussion]
>
> On 17 October 2011 14:58, Norman Gray<norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>  wrote:
>> ...
>> I've done far fewer talks of this type than Tom has, but I've never found anyone having difficulty here, either.  Mind you, I never talk of 'information resource' or httpRange-14.
>>
>> For what it's worth, I generally say something along the lines of "This URI, X, is the name of a galaxy.  If you put that URI into your
>> browser, you can't get the galaxy back, can you, because the galaxy is too big to fit inside your computer.  So something different has to
>> happen, doesn't it?"  A remark about Last-Modified generally seals the deal.
> I've done the same, and people do quite often get it. At least for a
> few minutes :) I think my experience echoes Rob's more than Tom's.
> I've had more than one Linked Data talk/tutorial de-railed by debate
> and discussion of the issue when there are much more interesting
> aspects to explore.

This is the biggest problem.
> While I've not used the galaxy example, I have taken similar
> approaches. But I can also imagine saying, for example:
>
> "This URI, X, is the name of a galaxy.  If you put that URI into your
> browser, obviously you can't get the galaxy back, can you. So when you
> request it, you get back a representation of it.

Yes, but to whom are you presenting that anecdote?

There are many profiles of end-users, power users, and developers that 
already understand that digital objects represent things (any 
observation subject).

Ending up with a debate that leads to convincing an audience about the 
non materialization of a galaxy in their browser is part of the problem 
(IMHO).

I don't every recall explaining the a record in a customer table != 
manifestation of the customer in a given DBMS, for instance. Arriving at 
this juncture re. Linked Data is quite prevalent, and that's why I take 
the position that the narrative is broken.

> You know, just like
> when you request a file from a web server you don't download the
> *actual* file, just a representation of it. Possibly in another
> format".
>
> And further, if someone asked about Last-Modified dates:
>
> "Last-Modified? Well as it turns out the Last-Modified date isn't
> defined to be the date that a resource last changed. It's up to the
> origin server to decide what it means. So for something like a galaxy,
> it can be the date of our last observation".
>
> My point being that web architecture already has a good explanation as
> to why real-world, or even digital things are passed around the
> internet. That's why we have the Resource and Representation
> abstractions in the first place.

Yes, but the architecture can end up getting lost in problematic 
narrative comprised of problematic anecdotes, as per my earlier comments.

> 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?

But you don't have two different resources. Please correct me if I am 
reading you inaccurately here, but are you saying that:

http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked Data and 
http://dbpedia.org/page/Linked Data == two different resources?

I see:

1. 2 URIs
2. a generic URI (serving as a Name) and a purpose specific URI called a 
URL that serves as a data access address -- still two identifiers albeit 
split by function .

I assume you see the same or something different?

>   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.

Crossing the bridge re. #1 & 2 above, should lead us to a place where 
slash and hash URIs are simply about publisher oriented implementation 
details re. Linked Data deployment.

> Anyone want to start things off?
>
> 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?
Without transformation heuristics how will they work? We do a lot of 
transformations because we approach things skeptically, but I really 
don't think that's the norm.


> Cheers,
>
> L.
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen