- From: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:19:38 +0200
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hello Jeni, On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:31:18PM +0100, Jeni Tennison wrote: > > Those purists will still see the new > > options that the proposal offers as what they are: Suboptimal. > > What would be optimal in your view? I do not know a way to mint two URIs (IR+NIR) in a way that is less "painful". > > You are solving the problem by pretending that the IRs are not there then > > the publisher does not make the distinction between IR and NIR. > > No, I am just proposing stopping pretending that the NIR is not there, which is what is mandated by the current httpRange-14 design. If - like Hugh suggested - httpRange-14 is really stopping people inside the community from delivering solutions and those people are willing to sacrifice the IRs (although I find both of this hard to believe) - then you have good reasons to go ahead. But this makes me think about what those same people will be unable to deliver because they cannot make the default IR assumption any more (as I said, the rest of the world will probably go on making it). Perhaps the default IR assumption be saved by saying that a 200 URI <X> is a IR as long as we don't find some triple at X that suggests otherwise. Why not a NIR class ? If the concept of IRs/NIRs is sufficiently unambiguous to talk about it in natural language (I think it is), we can talk about it in RDF. Regards, Michael Brunnbauer -- ++ Michael Brunnbauer ++ netEstate GmbH ++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a ++ 81379 München ++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80 ++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 ++ E-Mail brunni@netestate.de ++ http://www.netestate.de/ ++ ++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München) ++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342 ++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer ++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 13:20:03 UTC