- From: Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:12:04 -0500
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- CC: david@dbooth.org
As someone who has often commented publicly (and negatively) on matters of semWeb semantics and httpRange-14, I feel I have an obligation to offer comment publicly on the various change proposals being put forward [1]. Despite everyone's acknowledged fatigue about this issue, I think Jonathan Rees has done the community a real service pushing to re-surface and re-open this question for resolution. His efforts go back to 2007, showing just how slowly the wheels of standards sometimes turn [2]. I think everyone who has commented publicly on these issues over the years has an obligation to state their position: by submitting an alternative change proposal; by co-signing one of the existing proposals; or otherwise stating their views publicly. It is like democracy; if you don't vote, don't bitch about the outcome. As for me, I am supporting two items: 1) the complete abandonment of the "information resource" terminology: bury it forever! and 2) David Booth's alternative change proposal [3]. I am supporting David's proposal because it: * Sidesteps the “information resource” definition (though weaker than I would want) * Addresses only the specific HTTP and HTTPS cases * Avoids the constrained response format suggested by the TAG * Explicitly rejects assigning innate meanings to URIs * Poses the solution as a protocol (an understanding between publisher and consumer) rather than defining or establishing a meaning via naming * Provides multiple “cow paths” by which resource definitions can be conveyed, which gives publishers and consumers choice and offers the best chance for more well-trodden paths to emerge * Does not call for an outright repeal of the httpRange-14 rule, but retains it as one of multiple options for URI owners to describe resources * Permits the use of an HTTP 200 response with RDF content as a means of conveying a URI definition * Retains the use of the hash URI as an option * Provides alternatives to those who can not easily (or at all) use the 303 see also redirect mechanism, and * Simplifies the language and the presentation. BTW, I think it would be silly for the TAG not to address the entire range of httpRange-14 issues -- including terminology -- by hewing to an overly narrow interpretation of ISSUE-57. Mike [1] http://www.mkbergman.com/1002/tortured-terminology-and-problematic-prescriptions/ [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 [3] http://www.w3.org/wiki/UriDefinitionDiscoveryProtocol
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 00:12:39 UTC