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

>  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.


>   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