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