- From: Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:33:37 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, bill.roberts@planet.nl, public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Hi Richard, 2009/6/25 Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>: <snip/> > (On the value of content negotiation in general: I think the key point is > that any linked data URI intended for re-use, when put into a browser by the > average person interested in linked data publishing, MUST return something > human-readable. That's a hard requirement, otherwise people will never be > confident about what a particular URI means and hence they won't re-use. > That was the thinking behind the Cool URIs note when Leo and I wrote it a > few years ago. In the past, the only way to get that effect was with content > negotiation, so even though content negotiation is a pain, it's what we had > to do. In the present, we have an alternative thanks to RDFa. Not disagreeing at all about the human readable requirement, but just a question... in this scenario you describe, is there not a risk that Joe User will enter that URI and come to the conclusion that it identifies the document (or section thereof), rather than a thing described in the document? Interested in your thoughts :) Tom.
Received on Sunday, 28 June 2009 22:34:19 UTC