Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On 3/23/12 10:59 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> On 23/03/12 14:33, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
>>
>>> I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point
>>> I've been hammering on (TimBL and others have also pointed it out),
>>> that, as shown by the Flickr and Jamendo examples, the real issue is
>>> not an IR/NIR type distinction, but rather a distinction in the
>>> *manner* in which a URI gets its meaning, via instantiation (of some
>>> generic IR) on the one hand, vs. description (of *any* resource,
>>> perhaps even an IR) on the other. The whole
>>> information-resource-as-type issue is a total red herring, perhaps the
>>> most destructive mistake made by the httpRange-14 resolution.
>>
>> +1000. There is no need for anyone to even talk about "information 
>> resources". The important point about http-range-14, which 
>> unfortunately it itself does not make clear, is that the 200-level 
>> code is a signal that the URI *denotes* whatever it *accesses* via 
>> the HTTP internet architecture.
>
> Quite, and this signal is what the change proposal rejects.
>
> The proposal is that URI X denotes what the publisher of X says it 
> denotes, whether it returns 200 or not.
>
> In those cases where you want a separate URI Xrdf to denote "the 
> document containing the steaming pile of RDF triples describing X" 
> then (in addition to use of 303s) you have the option to include
>
>      X wdr:describedby Xrdf .
>
> Thus if X denotes a book then you can describe the license for the 
> book and the license for the description of the book separately.
>
> Dave
>
>
Dave,

What  developer profile is going to perform the following:

1. make the relation -- at resource creation time
2. comprehend the relation -- at resource consumption time.

Most ontologies from the Semantic Web community don't even have 
rdfs:isDefinedBy relations. And that's circa. 2012.

If we are serious about keeping Linked Data "deceptively simple" we have 
to veer away from muddying the waters. This is why we shouldn't 
introduce a semantic-relations-comprehension-tax on those new to Linked 
Data. It's much simpler getting them to understand that Linked Data is 
about Resources bearing structured data that specifically describe Named 
Subjects. These subject names can take the form of a URI, ideally, an 
HTTP URI if you seek to leverage WWW expanse and ubiquity.

When we get to the matter of slash vs hash style of URIs and 
de-reference requirements, that can also be explained using more user 
oriented narratives than what's currently in HttpRange-14.

What we shouldn't do right now is add murkiness to muddy waters via yet 
another heuristic.

Let's teach people (collectively as a community) how to do the following:

1. Name Things
2. Describe Things
3. Publish Descriptions of Things
4. Tweak Names of Things so that they resolve to their Descriptions
5. Tweak Descriptions so that they increasingly use terms from shared 
vocabularies.


We can do this without messing around with HttpRange-14 and its current 
recommendations.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen