- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:22:24 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-webid@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhK92eFFFF5aEj74iDh1kyZB1e5AP-MxXqgHXf8WYC4f1g@mail.gmail.com>
On 20 November 2012 13:03, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > On 11/19/12 6:16 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > > > On 19 November 2012 23:58, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > >> All, >> >> To understand this old problem please read: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-cooluris-20071217/#hashuri . >> >> Important point to note, this matter ultimately becomes a permathread >> whenever a spec attempts to pick one style over the other. >> >> The solution to these kinds of problems stem back to biblical stories, >> such as the one illustrating the wisdom of Solomon re. splitting a disputed >> baby in half. >> >> HTTP URIs are "horses for course" compliant. It is always best to keep >> them that way when designing specs for HTTP based solutions. >> > > Thanks > "Conclusion. Hash URIs should be preferred for rather small and stable > sets of resources that evolve together. An ideal case are RDF Schema > vocabularies and OWL ontologies, where the terms are often used together, > and the number of terms is unlikely to grow much in the future. > > Hash URIs without content negotiation can be implemented by simply > uploading static RDF files to a Web server, without any special server > configuration. This makes them popular for quick-and-dirty RDF publication. > > 303 URIs should be used for large sets of data that are, or may grow, > beyond the point where it is practical to serve all related resources in a > single document. > > If in doubt, it's better to use the more flexible 303 URI approach. > " > > Will try and digest this a bit more. I may still be missing something but > if you have a paradigm of one data item per page and call it #, like > facebook do, I'm still trying to see the advantage of 303s. As pointed > out, facebook is not a small data set. > > > The definition of a WebID shouldn't be based on implementation details re. > style of HTTP URI. Secondly, I already gave you an example of proxy URIs > based on 303 redirection. The ability to produce 5-Star Linked Data for > specific purposes without waiting for Facebook. Example, how we enable any > Facebook user acquire a WebID that resolves to a profile graph that's > usable with the WebID over TLS protocol re. authentication. > OK, sorry for being a bit slow. Proxy URI's do make a lot of sense. I've read most of your posts but if you had a pointer to refresh my memory that'd be great. Are there any other cases you can think of, to hand? > >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > > 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 > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 23:22:52 UTC