- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:26:00 +0000
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: public-lod@w3.org
On 23/03/12 15:40, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > 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. They don't have to. That's the point. This is removing a tax, not adding one. A developer who wants to use a URI to denote something can just publish RDF at that URI and they are done. They don't *have* to enter the world of 303's and httpRange-14. However, *if* that developer wants to also say something about the RDF document they have published (e.g. provenance or licensing) *then* they have the option to create a second URI for that and relate the two by any of the three mechanisms described (303, link header, wdr:describedby relation). A particular beauty of the change proposal is that it allows the developer to take the easy path first and then, if later they find a need to reference the RDF document itself, they can refactor to do that. The entity URIs don't change. Lower barrier to entry, but you don't get trapped into a corner if you enter this way. Dave
Received on Friday, 23 March 2012 16:26:32 UTC