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

Re: Should specifications take sides in the httpRange-14 debate?

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:58:25 +0000
Message-ID: <50AD2451.20500@webr3.org>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
Kingsley Idehen 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.

Exactly,

We must ask ourselves:
(1) Would WebID 1.0 would ever get through to TR without 303s?
(2) if it did, would the restriction be ignored by the community and 
toolmakers?

I think the answers are clear.

Best,

Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 18:59:35 UTC

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