Re: Using "Punning" to Answer httpRange-14

On 5/14/12 6:20 AM, Michiel de Jong wrote:
> no. if a vocabulary has not already thought about which one of the 4
> options a certain property means, then it was broken.

The Web is Broken. The Web is Alive. That's why it works. You can 
"sense" or "perceive" via different "context lenses".

> we should just
> indicate what the correct interpretation is for the properties we
> already use, and add new once if needed.
>
> IF for any given vocabulary this process involves "rethinking" as you
> say, then that vocabulary was broken! Not rethinking a broken
> vocabulary is an option, and probably many vocabularies will choose
> that option for a long time, but the ones that are really being used
> will/want/  to rethink "when i say 'license', what do i mean?" if they
> have not already done so.
>
> you could make a common practice to prefix properties, so you get
> "license" to mean subject-sense, object-contents, and e.g.
> "doc-license" to mean subject-contents, object-contents. my unfinished
> proposal for Hungarian rel names (see other thread on this list) is
> very much related to that.
>
> Let's just name our variable right, and then there is no problem.
>
> For me, Jeni's blogpost closes the http range 14 discussion, and moves
> it into each vocabulary, where naming is probably easier to get right.

Yes, via your "context lenses" it closes the HttpRange-14 discussion, 
what about the "context lenses" of others? Look, The Web has many 
aspects to it, and the key is to make these aspects manifest unobtrusively.

The Web doesn't work because a specific vocabulary has been *knowingly* 
adopted. It works because the architecture is dexterous and 
accommodating to different world views.

Mandating that an RDF client should disambiguate HTTP URI based Subject 
Names and Content Addresses via 200 OK and HTTP Location headers is fine 
for RDF systems. On the other hand, that approach isn't fine when the 
systems aren't RDF based albeit still part of the broader Web. The 303 
option is just about understanding that the Web is much more than RDF, 
and that there will be a grey area of overlap where the system is a 
hybrid comprised of structured data not represented in any RDF syntax 
albeit based on the Entity-Attribute-Value (EAV) data model, even when 
said model incorporates HTTP URIs (which is what RDF adds to the model) 
or de-referencable HTTP URIs -- which is what Linked Data adds to the model.

HttpRange-14 is a distraction until you have proper context for 
comprehending what it is trying to solve, albeit via a historically 
mangled narrative.


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen