Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On 3/23/12 12:26 PM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> 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.

You assume its removing a tax. 303 on slash URIs isn't a tax. You break 
that and you a making a tax.

>
> 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.

This is where we have disagreement, fundamentally.

You are talking about RDF. I am talking about Linked Data which isn't 
necessarily Linked Data i.e., back to RDF != Linked Data.

A developer creates a descriptor resource, it subject is unambiguously 
named, and said resource is published to an Address. The subject name 
and the descriptor resource address do not need to collide.

>
> 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).

Yes, and you can do that using slash style of URIs via 303s. Of course, 
you can achieve the same goal via a wdrs:describedby relation, but in 
doing so you force the Linked Data consumer to understand the semantic 
fidelity of that relation. That is a tax for most, certainly those 
unfamiliar with the Linked Data system.

>
> 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.

No, they are taking the wrong path first by intermingling a Name and an 
Address. Untangling that isn't as easy as you hope.
>
> Lower barrier to entry, but you don't get trapped into a corner if you 
> enter this way.

I disagree.

Explain the basics with clarity and more audience specific annecdotal 
material and they won't have to use "easy" as the excuse for taking the 
"simply simple" as opposed to "deceptively simple" route to Linked Data.

I am unconvinced that people have real issues with using HTTP URI based 
names once they actually understand what Linked Data is all about. It 
absolutely isn't rocket science. Its fundamentally a contemporary 
variation of an old pattern. I know of no data-access-by-reference savvy 
developer that is confused by these matters. The RDBMS and ODBC, JDBC, 
ADO.NET, OLE-DB etc.. realms are littered with the developer profile I 
describe. They all grok this subject matter, they just don't always 
recognize it via HttpRange-14's narrative and anecdotes.
>
> Dave
>
>


-- 

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