Re: Using "Punning" to Answer httpRange-14

On 5/15/12 4:03 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> On 15 May 2012, at 21:10, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> 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.
> At the logical layer the types of URIs make no difference.

That's the point.

>   At the pragmatic layer
> they do.

Yes, of course.

> And there it's useful to know what the cost of each type of URI is.

Yes, that why I said: URI abstraction is "horses for course" compliant :-)

> #uris are easy to understand and work with: no need for redirects and access to
> metadata.

Yes.

They are by far the simplest route to comprehending the core concept and 
implicit prowess, for sure.

> 303s may be useful for large datasets it seems - well that's ok, as
> people who have those will be able to invest in the infrastructure needed.

The are useful mechanisms for packing data integration value into links. 
Remember my DBpedia example. It had to work, there was no option for 
pointing fingers or frameworks etc.. Basically, whenever we have to work 
with the Web as it is, via Linked Data middleware, hashless URIs come in 
handy.
> (and perhaps have the energy to work to a better solution than 303, if such is needed)

Depends :-)

Kingsley
>
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 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