- From: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:57:46 -0500
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <uri@w3.org>
Noah: I just spent some time re-reading the long series of email discussions about httpRange-14 [1]. It seems they addressed at length what a URI points to, but did not address what does point to a thing when one wants to be able to get an associate representation about that thing. Further it seemed to me that most of the members in the discussion reasonably saw the need for the HTTP URL to identify a thing and were okay with some ambiguity, but that TimBL was most adamant that it behave certain ways in order that it be consistent with his vision for RDF. Would you concur or disagree? BTW, my takeaway from the results of that discussion (thus far) is that things might have been much different had RDF not been a central focus of TimBL at that time. That seems to me to be a shame considering how RDF is still only used on the periphery of the web and certainly not as part of the mainstream web. And IMO, RDF will probably never make the mainstream because it requires people to be too concise, and people in general are not good at being concise (witness the percentage of HTML files on the web that validate...) -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org http://atlanta-web.org [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 21:13:20 UTC