- From: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:18:38 +0200
- To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- CC: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 4/10/2014 11:53 AM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote: > HttpRange-14 and related discussions are overrated, in my opinion. For broad audiences of Webmasters, it is much easier to provide the string of an authoritative Web page URI as a pointer to support entity recognition than to understand the difference between e.g. > > http://dbpedia.org/page/John_Lennon > > and > > http://dbpedia.org/resource/John_Lennon > > In particular, if content negotiation will always make the "page" URI appear in a browser's address line, so for copy-and-paste, you need extra effort to use the proper entity URI. > > By the way, schema.org as a whole decided back then, and I think it was a great decision, to use the same URI for the page describing a conceptual element and the conceptual element itself.http://schema.org/Vehicle for instance is the identifier for the class/type and also a Web page. > > Again, I urge you all to regard schema.org as an interface to Web developers' minds and the data they control, not as a beautiful all-purpose category system for the human race as a whole. Thanks Martin ! This is exactly how should be. Many already process this data not only search engines. Moreover, would not be bad if http://dbpedia.org accepts headers such as application/json+schema or text/plain on all resources. Then a request to the URL http://dbpedia.org/page/John_Lennon will offer what people looks for :) We only need the URI (in this case http://dbpedia.org/resource/John_Lennon ) which will identify both the resource and the "page". This can be achieved quite easy... > > Martin All the best, Adrian
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2014 10:19:40 UTC