- From: Dave Reynolds <dave@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:51:11 +0100
- To: tom.heath@talis.com
- CC: public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 26/03/12 16:05, Tom Heath wrote: > On 23 March 2012 15:35, Steve Harris<steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote: >> On 23 Mar 2012, at 14:05, Jonathan A Rees wrote: >>> 2012/3/23 Melvin Carvalho<melvincarvalho@gmail.com>: >>>> I dont think, even the wildest optimist, could have predicted the success of >>>> the current architecture (both pre and post HR14). >>> >>> The votes of confidence are interesting to me, as I have not been >>> hearing them previously. It does appear we have a divided community, >>> with some voices feeling that 303 will be the death of linked data, >>> and others saying hash and 303 are working well. Where the center of >>> gravity lies, I have no way of telling (and perhaps it's not important >>> as long as any disagreement, or even ignorance, remains). As Larry >>> Masinter said at the last TAG telcon, things do not seem to be >>> converging. >> >> I'm sure many people are just deeply bored of this discussion. > > No offense intended to Jeni and others who are working hard on this, > but *amen*, with bells on! No argument. > One of the things that bothers me most about the many years worth of > httpRange-14 discussions (and the implications that HR14 is > partly/heavily/solely to blame for slowing adoption of Linked Data) is > the almost complete lack of hard data being used to inform the > discussions. For a community populated heavily with scientists I find > that pretty tragic. The primary reason for having put my name to the proposal was that I personally been adversely affected. I have been involved in client discussions that have been derailed by someone bringing up httprange-14. I have been in discussions with clients where 303s are not acceptable (thanks to CDN behaviour). I have both received and (sadly) sent out data that is broken and caused errors due to cut/paste from the browser bar thanks to httprange-14. My anecdotal evidence is that the nature of the recurrent discussion can create or reinforce an impression of the area being too academic, not ready for practical use. I don't claim that httprange-14 is solely or substantially to blame for holding back linked data. I don't claim that my personal experience is necessarily widespread or representative. There is no science on offer here, move on. But ... if, with the current TAG process, there is a chance of a new resolution that reduces any of these problems then it is worth a tiny bit of effort. If there is a chance the new resolution will be so good as to damp down this permathread then it is worth more effort. If it kills the permathread completely then I owe someone at least a crate of beer. Dave
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 15:51:43 UTC