Re: Hash vs Hashless URIs

On 11 December 2012 15:28, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>> On 11 December 2012 14:48, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org*
>> *>wrote:
>>
>>  Excerpts from Melvin Carvalho's message of 2012-11-21 15:51:49 +0000:
>>>
>>>> On 21 November 2012 15:43, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <
>>>> perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Excerpts from Kingsley Idehen's message of 2012-11-21 14:18:13 +0000:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please call vote on this matter. I have better things to do with my
>>>>>> time. If a majority want a WebID to be defined a hash based HTTP URI,
>>>>>> let's get that in the open right now. We all have decisions to make
>>>>>> about how we spend our time and priorities across our respective
>>>>>> development efforts.
>>>>>>
>>>>> $ curl -I http://sebastian.tramp.name
>>>>> HTTP/1.1 303 See Other
>>>>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:33:16 GMT
>>>>> Server: Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu)
>>>>> X-Powered-By: PHP/5.3.2-1ubuntu4.18
>>>>> X-Pingback: http://pingback.aksw.org/
>>>>> Location: http://bis.informatik.uni-**leipzig.de/SebastianTramp<http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/SebastianTramp>
>>>>> Vary: Accept-Encoding
>>>>> Content-Type: text/html
>>>>>
>>>>> personally i would also like to use WebID without #i or #me or #self or
>>>>> #elf or #wtf ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>  elf, can you explain why you would want this ... do you have any
>>>> specific
>>>> reason, or is it simply a 'vanity' url?
>>>>
>>> first of all apologies for this super delayed reply!
>>>
>>> to start in very general way, i like when we design technology that
>>> serves
>>> people and make sure that we don't expect people to stretch their comfort
>>> ONLY to fit some technological solution (at the same time i don't mind
>>> encouraging some stretching but motivated with more extensional
>>> reasons!) i
>>> also realize that we design with certain group of people in mind as well
>>> -
>>> *developers* - but if someone needs to stretch from technical reasons
>>> ... ;)
>>>
>>> when i think of a concept of ID, i see most people identifying themselves
>>> nowadays with either their email address (including unfortunate @twitter
>>> thing) or their homepage / online profile. i see various challenges
>>> people
>>> from webfinger/simple web discovery face with using email like
>>> identifiers,
>>> and i agree that we can simplify certain things by sticking to HTTP. when
>>> it comes to identifying onself with certain HTTP URL, may people may have
>>> their homepage, blog, various online profiles. sometimes people also
>>> print
>>> them on their personal cards. i've never seen someone using a URL with
>>> #something it for personal homepage or online profile. i understand
>>> distinction between referencing an online profile and entity which this
>>> profile describes, still requiring people to use #whatever feel to me
>>> like
>>> putting burden on those who *just want to use this damn thing*, and very
>>> likely brining confusion to broad audience.
>>>
>>> besides making pools and discussions within this group, mostly with
>>> people
>>> having strong and at least medium (like myself) understanding of
>>> underlying
>>> technologies. i would like to look for feedback from people like *my
>>> auntie* or at least *arts student* who can find their way in interacting
>>> online but see this whole thing as a magical black box.
>>>
>>> from my perspective sticking to identifiers like http://funkyjohny.me or
>>> http://funkyclub.org/johny can make it simplest for people to really
>>> identify oneself with such URL, which to my understanding mean that even
>>> using 303 may bring confusion if we type http://funkyjohny.me and end up
>>> somewhere let's say on http://funkyjohny.me/profile
>>>
>>> looking at present tendencies in online interaction, besides crafting
>>> technologies with solid technical foundations we MUST also make sure that
>>> we make them SEXY!
>>>
>>> once more i see it very impractical to design beautiful *Interaction
>>> Experience* just within circle of geeks and such *front end* related
>>> issues
>>> i would like to confront with people who consider internet as magical
>>> thing
>>> :)
>>>
>>> last but not least i would like to say that i find great appreciation to
>>> all the work people do in this and other related working groups! and i
>>> would find it a big shame if lack of SEXYness become and obstacle to a
>>> broad adoption of this work...
>>>
>>>
>> FWIW I have tried explaining # URIs to people of all ages, male and
>> female.  I start by saying that we have the concept of web pages.  Then I
>> tell them that it is possible to split web pages up into sections using
>> the
>> # character.  Each section can be about a different topic.  Then each
>> topic
>> can have properties and attributes in it's own right.
>>
>> I have *never* once failed to explain this to a non technical person in
>> less than 5 minutes.  In fact most people come back to me and say, that
>> was
>> very easy.
>>
>> It's only the "cool kids" that find this concept very hard to grasp.  That
>> is because it requires unlearning what they have learnt.  It's sad to say
>> that some web developers will never understand this.  It's not about lack
>> of knowledge, it's about preconcieved notions.  This is not unique to the
>> web, it's true in many fields.
>>
>
> I agree, for most developers (including myself) the semantic web and
> general web architecture involved a big dose of unlearning.
>
> #frag URIs are as complex as looking up a chapter in a book, a scene on a
> dvd, a level in a game, or a student in a class room.
>

Nice analogies.  One more I was thinking about was:

Many people living in a single building.

With simple web pages you can build a house.  With fragments you can build
a sky scraper!


>
> IMHO, much of the confusion is around using full URIs, but that can easily
> be masked by simple ux/ui/syntax trickery..  :bob and @bob.
>
>