W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Hash vs Hashless URIs

From: Andrei SAMBRA <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:24:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFG79ejxodpwAe6X+CyaojJbWyGru4mVPUJbnf2vNpGUDvJM4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

> On 11/20/12 6:22 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> When I say proxyURI I also mean a wrapper URI. An intermediary URI that
> handles all the data access and transformation heuristics via URL patterns.
> For example, how we (and others) use existing data formats and protocols to
> produce 5-star Linked Data [1][2][3][4][5] on the fly. Others have produced
> similar and a majority are based on hashless URIs.
>
> Instead or re-beating this matter to death, I really encourage the group
> to move to a proper vote on this matter. I don't feel we are actually
> making any progress on the debate front. It's time to vote on this matter
> so that we can all make clear decisions about our respective strategies and
> priorities, bearing in mind general time scarcity.
>
>
Kingsley, I'm starting to get the impression that you are going around in
circles. One day you agree about # URIs, one day you don't. Your concern,
which is also mostly shared by people affiliated to OpenLink Software,
deals with compatibility with your current implementation/products. While
it _is_ a valid reason, worthy of being taken into consideration, I
personally believe that it is not sufficient to dismiss the current
proposed spec, which has the potential to affect many more future users and
applications.

With the risk of repeating myself yet again, I want to say that the goal of
the WebID CG is to move forward and become a WG. We have been advised by a
lot of experienced people at TPAC that the best way to proceed is to
eliminate all unnecessary ambiguity from the current spec. You need to
understand that in this case, adding a few constraints helps us to achieve
this goal. This matter is not about personal preferences, but about valid
reasons why several decisions were taken, decisions which are above all
about scalability/performance.

My impression of you at this point is that you're viewing the whole process
of having WebID reach a TR through the eyes of a CEO, very concerned about
one of your products. The standardization process is a long a tedious one.
To be able to succeed, you need to realize that by making a compromise at
this point (by adding constraints to the spec) we can finally move forward.
Please, try to see the bigger picture.

Best,
Andrei


>  Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/about<https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about>
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehen<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 05:24:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:46 UTC