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

Re: Hash vs Hashless URIs

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 07:30:28 -0500
Message-ID: <50ACC964.60701@openlinksw.com>
To: public-webid@w3.org
On 11/21/12 12:24 AM, Andrei SAMBRA wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Kingsley Idehen 
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto: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.

When did I ever give you the opinion that I support constraining WebIDs 
to hash based HTTP URIs? Can you point to any resource where I've 
indicated what you claim?

> Your concern, which is also mostly shared by people affiliated to 
> OpenLink Software, deals with compatibility with your current 
> implementation/products.

You really think it boils down to that, seriously? I hope you understand 
that Linked Data isn't some new fad. Neither is the WebID concept. 
Please invest sometime in actually looking the history of both. Google 
is your friend on that front, at the very least.

> 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.

Raising concerns isn't dismissal. If anything you and the others who are 
supporting a flawed view are the one's who are in fact being dismissive. 
Again, do understand that TimBL explained his concerns about hashless 
URIs, what he didn't do is imply that WebID MUST be scoped to said HTTP 
URI type. There's a different between implementation optimization and 
architectural design.

>
> 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.

Since you clearly have no idea why I am raising these concerns, and 
you've opted to take the cheap personal accusations route, be rest 
assured you are burning up my patience. I do have much better things to 
do with my time.

>
> 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.

See my last comment above.

> The standardization process is a long a tedious one.

See my last comment above, and invest a modicum of time understand who I 
am and where I come from. You are beginning sound quite immature and 
utterly inexperienced re. W3C process and technology architecture!

> 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.

See my comments above.

>
> 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/%7Ekidehen>
>     Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>     Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>     LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

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 Wednesday, 21 November 2012 12:30:55 UTC

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