W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > October 2011

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

From: Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:34:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CACho_AuQPotNTBwXWycziZ_z5YCdrOs88L_YByggdx+LRVH3YQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>wrote:

> If you adopt the httpRange-14 rule, what this does is make the Flickr
> and Jamendo pages "wrong", and if *they* agree, they will change their
> metadata. The eventual advantage is that there will be no need to be
> clear since a different URI (or blank node) will clearly be used to
> name the photo, and will be understood in that way.
> I feel you're doing a bait-and-switch here. The topic is, what does
> the httpRange-14 rule do for you, NOT whether a different rule (such
> as "just read the RDF") is better than it for some purposes, or what
> sort of agreement might we want to attempt. If you want to do a
> comparison of different rules, please change the subject line.
I don't think this was a bait-and-switch. I think Leigh made clear that he
was questioning whether we should spend so much time making pages (and
people) "wrong". As he said:

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?

Telling someone they are wrong because they don't follow a rule that they
don't understand or don't see a benefit to is a *must* position. Explaining
how the httpRange-14 rule is better than another is explaining the
*benefits* of having different identifiers.

Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 12:34:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:17 UTC