Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

Hi Dave,

On 26 March 2012 16:51, Dave Reynolds <dave@epimorphics.com> wrote:
> 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.

My anecdotal evidence suggests the same.

> 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.

As I suspected, knowing your penchant for rigour :)

> 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.

I'll personally double the beer prize. I really want to see closure as
much as you do, but will admit I'm skeptical. Do we collectively have
an agreement that whatever the TAG decide we'll accept it, implement
it, shut up, and move on? Now that's a document I want to see
signatures on!

(Obviously such a document would place even greater pressure on the
TAG, who already have my gratitude for doing a tough job.)

Cheers,

Tom.

-- 
Dr. Tom Heath
Senior Research Scientist
Talis Education Ltd.
W: http://www.talisaspire.com/
W: http://tomheath.com/

Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 16:26:15 UTC