- From: Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:35:48 -0500
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFG79eiAO0mFCd1x3-oB1SNcAXyYYmE01xNpJD_SSxooHZKRgQ@mail.gmail.com>
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