Re: Using "Punning" to Answer httpRange-14

On 5/15/12 2:14 PM, Jürgen Jakobitsch wrote:
> It's not a problem. 303s a re just a workaround for people who
> don't get things right to start. Much better to use #tag uris
> for URIs referring to things. It's easier and everybody understands
> it.
>
> 303 is for people who started off not wanting to do things right,
> and then discovered that they can't put a copyright on their document
> anymore because otherwise they would be putting a copyright on the object
> they are speaking about.
>
>
> come on now... this sounds a bit harsh..
>
> what do you do with #-uris if you have a thesaurus of 100000 concepts.
> serve the whole dataset when some dereferences one concept?
>
> i'd say #-uris are fine for very small datasets like an ontology.
>
> wkr j

+1000...

To speak about any *preferred* style of URI in context of AWWW is 
eternally broken.

URI Everything and Everything is Cool :-)


Kingsley


>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henry Story"<henry.story@bblfish.net>
> To: "Michiel de Jong"<michiel@unhosted.org>
> Cc: "Kingsley Idehen"<kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-rww@w3.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 5:26:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Using "Punning" to Answer httpRange-14
>
>
> On 15 May 2012, at 14:53, Michiel de Jong wrote:
>
>> OK, the diagram is very helpful! now we're getting somewhere.
>>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com>  wrote:
>>> https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1ZUzBa4HjNUXg_OeFudwK0XO70VeJRxJoXv4RW2KamhY/edit
>>>   -- illustration of what happens with names and indirection re. Linked Data
>> I understand that you say:
>> - if you want to publish a link to a document, make sure you don't put
>> a '#' in the URL.
>> - if you want to publish a link to a sense, make sure that either you
>> put a '#' in the URL, or you that the URL returns a 303.
>>
>> So if i build a client based on your diagram, then that means my
>> client will be compatible with hash-uri-rule camp content, and also
>> with 303 camp content (provided they never refer to document fragments
>> or hashbangs), but not with punning camp content.
>>
>> Given that most people who publish web content (i.e. web designers)
>> have never heard of 303s and hash-uri-rule, that's a big problem.
> It's not a problem. 303s a re just a workaround for people who
> don't get things right to start. Much better to use #tag uris
> for URIs referring to things. It's easier and everybody understands
> it.
>
> 303 is for people who started off not wanting to do things right,
> and then discovered that they can't put a copyright on their document
> anymore because otherwise they would be putting a copyright on the object
> they are speaking about.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Simple stupid economic drive and legal problems will make people grok
> this one.
>
> Also HTTP-range-14 is close to troll land. I know you don't intend it
> but please let's just go with things and stop this discussion. It does
>   have a lot of interesting philosophical background, but I don't suppose
> you seriously want to read that literature.
>
>> Also, it only works for links and not for document elements like
>> <span>  or<h2>  which can also be marked up semantically.
>>
>> Consider an easy example: someone writes a blog, and adds a
>> 'property="author"' attribute to a link the link's href is e.g.
>> "http://example.com/author.html". According to your diagram, that
>> means a web page wrote the web page.
> That's the same with english. What you write can be different from
> what you intend to write.
>
>> not what was meant by the
>> blogger. so then you submit a comment to the blog saying 'hey, your
>> blog is broken!'. you do this 2 billion times because there is a lot
>> of content out there on the web. the blogger reads your comment,
>> learns about linked data, apologizes to you, and quickly phones up
>> godaddy where her blog is hosted, and ask how to put a 303 on
>> "http://example.com/author.html". godaddy says they don't know what
>> she's talking about either, so in the end she opts for the easier
>> option of changing the link to "http://example.com/author.html#". now
>> your client works again.
> There are a lot of crap pages out there, with broken links pointing
> to stupid things. The web is big enough for a lot of crap to exist.
> People just stay away from it by not linking to those places.
>
>
>> in the end your client will become like the new IE6. people who use it
>> will have to complain a lot to webmasters, asking them to change
>> existing content in order to comply with its weird non-mainstream
>> quirks.
>>
>> Do you see the problem? Jeni explains this problem in her blogpost. I
>> find it a convincing argument to stop trying to make 303s and
>> hash-uri-rule obligatory. the standards should work with the existing
>> content out there as much as possible. Do you not think so?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michiel
>>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
>


-- 

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