- From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:25:03 -0400
- To: 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. I agree Leigh. The argument that you can't deliver an entity like a Galaxy to someone's browser sounds increasingly hollow to me. Nobody really expects that, and the concept of a Representation from WebArch/REST explains it away to most technical people. Plus, we now have examples in the wild like OpenGraphProtocol that seem to be delivering drinks, politicians, hotels, etc to machine agents at Facebook just fine. But there does seem to be a valid design pattern, or even refactoring pattern, in httpRange-14 that is worth documenting. Perhaps a good place would be http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/? I think positioning httpRange-14 as a MUST instead of a SHOULD or MAY made a lot of sense to get the LOD experiment rolling. It got me personally thinking about the issue of identity in a practical way as I built web applications, that I probably wouldn't otherwise have otherwise done. But it would've been easier if grappling with it was optional, and there were practical examples of where it is useful, instead of having it be an issue of dogma. //Ed
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 12:25:42 UTC