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 08:35:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFG79eiAO0mFCd1x3-oB1SNcAXyYYmE01xNpJD_SSxooHZKRgQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

>  On 11/21/12 12:24 AM, Andrei SAMBRA wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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?
>

It might have been just an impression, I admit. I'll take it back since it
was not the case.

>   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.
>

Yes I do think that. Why would looking up Linked Data and WebID be related
to this topic?

>   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.
>

 The issue here is not about being dismissive. By saying that it is clear
that you are taking this personally, which is not the case.

>
>  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.
>
>
Please forgive me, I was not trying to accuse anyone at this point. I was
just explaining why we're pushing for these constraints. You are taking it
personally.

>
>  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.
>

Your main argument so far was that you have a 30k user base and you need to
make sure they can still use your products. Read the minutes again.


>
>   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!
>
>
That is your personal opinion. You are never referring to the spec whenever
you disagree with something. Have you thoroughly read the spec lately? The
feedback I got so far was that it is very easy to understand and that it
makes a lot of sense. It's important we stop talking out of context and we
refer to the spec.

Andrei


>
>   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.
>
> --
>
> 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 13:36:43 UTC

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