- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:18:17 +0100
- To: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
- CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On 21/10/2011 12:52, Leigh Dodds wrote: > 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. Ah OK. So you introduce a new, different IR, but preserve the conneg so that old HTML pages links to the picture still resolve. Yes you are right, I think that does work. Dave
Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 16:18:57 UTC