- From: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:24:34 -0400
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 19:49 +0000, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> James,
>
> On 23 Mar 2012, at 19:23, James Leigh wrote:
> > I am not saying everyone should care to distinguish them (real data will
> > always be dirty), but using the same identifier for both the person and
> > the document should not be the recommended approach.
>
>
> Absolutely. Where in the Change Proposal do you think it says otherwise? I'd be glad to clarify it.
At the bottom:
where a URI is intended to identify a NIR but provides a 200
response, there remains no method of addressing the
documentation that is returned by that 200 response (to assert
its license, provenance etc); a set of best practices for linked
data publishers would need to spell out what publishers should
do and how consumers should interpret the information provided
within the response and that found at the end of any
‘describedby’ links
The proposal says there is no way to identify the document.
A Web crawler, for example, may need to know what document has the
xhv:stylesheet attached to it. With the current HttpRange-14, the URL
that returns a 200 is the identifier of the document. This proposal, as
I understand it, brakes that because the document may have no identifier
at all.
Regards,
James
Received on Friday, 23 March 2012 20:25:04 UTC