- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:52:00 +0100
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi, On 21 October 2011 08:47, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: > ... >> On 20 October 2011 10:34, Dave Reynolds<dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> If you have two resources and later on it turns out you only needed one, >>> no big deal just declare their equivalence. If you have one resource >>> where later on it turns out you needed two then you are stuffed. >> >> Ed referred to "refactoring". So I'm curious about refactoring from a >> single URI to two. Are developers necessarily stuffed, if they start >> with one and later need two? >> >> For example, what if I later changed the way I'm serving data to add a >> Content-Location header (something that Ian has raised in the past, >> and Michael has mentioned again recently) which points to the source >> of the data being returned. >> >> Within the returned data I can include statements about the document >> at that URI referred to in the Content-Location header. >> >> Doesn't that kind of refactoring help? > > Helps yes, but I don't think it solves everything. > > Suppose you have been using http://example.com/lovelypictureofm31 to denote > M31. Some data consumers use your URI to link their data on M31 to it. Some > other consumers started linking to it in HTML as an IR (because they like > the picture and the accompanying information, even though they don't care > about the RDF). Now you have two groups of users treating the URI in > different ways. This probably doesn't matter right now but if you decide > later on you need to separate them then you can't introduce a new URI > (whether via 303 or content-location header) without breaking one or other > use. Not the end of the world but it's not a refactoring if the test cases > break :) > > Does that make sense? No, I'm still not clear. If I retain the original URI as the identifier for the galaxy and add either a redirect or a Content-Location, then I don't see how I break those linking their data to it as their statements are still made about the original URI. But I don't see how I'm breaking people linking to it as if it were an IR. That group of people are using my resource ambiguously in the first place. Their links will also still resolve to the same content. L. -- Leigh Dodds Product Lead, Kasabi Mobile: 07850 928381 http://kasabi.com http://talis.com Talis Systems Ltd 43 Temple Row Birmingham B2 5LS
Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 11:52:36 UTC