- From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:08:25 -0500
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Message-ID: <CAGR+nnGzq+77Oy1O0+8k3gGi8gshGC7cNW-u-NASTfh=1YJozg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>wrote: > But there is also Larry Massinter's position > published here: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Nov/0024.html > > > Speaking for myself: > > > > I think the TAG taking up this issue was based on the presumption (which > I question) that httpRange-14 was an issue that made sense without any > additional context, or that, even if the question made sense, that a > uniform answer was necessary or feasible. > > > > if I working group wishes to promote one side or another, let them. > There is no reason to imagine the TAG would make more progress in the next > 10 years than it has in the last, on this (so-called) issue. > > > > The design proposed is one where there is a WebID protocol element whose > value resembles a URL (not a URI? Surely you are not planning on requiring > the non-English world to use ASCII WebIDs?) but is not in fact _any_ URL > but rather a string which meets other criteria but also uses the http or > https scheme with a fragment identifier. Presumably you will outlaw > http://localhost/ or http: URIs which don’t include FQDNs (fully > qualified domain names), etc. > > > > Given that you have a string resembling a URL but not really ‘any URL’, > any decision made in such a narrow application is unlikely to be accepted > by “other sides” of identifier preferences. > > > > Larry > > I think there Larry makes a good point with regard to URI/URLs. Now that > we have > agreed to restrict to http/https URI's we should use the URI term, as that > deals > with internationalisation. > you mean IRI right? That was also part of Antoine's feedback to switch from URI to IRI. Steph. > > > On 21 Nov 2012, at 13:44, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > > > On 11/21/12 6:39 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > >> Work continues within the TAG on this issue [1]. On current course > >> and speed, I expect hash URIs will be just fine. My personal take on > >> the likely TAG position is that no community of practice with respect > >> to URI use on the Semantic Web can or will be declared to be > >> "losers". The goal of the current work is to foster interoperability, > >> not mandate a single "winner". > >> > >> Hope this helps, > >> > >> ht > >> > >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html > > > > FWIW -- for those of you that want to define a WebID in a manner that > contradicts the position above. > > > > An architecture spec isn't about optimization. Engineering deals with > optimization. A technical spec isn't supposed to teach engineering or > shoehorn engineering decisions. > > > > If anyone is serious about solving this issue. Simply call a vote. I > would be really interested to see how many real Linked Data practitioners > support the proposal for WebIDs being hash based HTTP URIs while also > trying to reconcile that back to TimBL's Linked Data meme as its > architectural foundation. > > > > You don't pick winners (if you can help it), since you ultimately always > alienate the losers. > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > > -- Steph.
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 13:08:53 UTC