- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:38:12 +0100
- To: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 3 Apr 2008, at 19:31, Mikael Nilsson wrote: > tor 2008-04-03 klockan 18:56 +0100 skrev Richard Cyganiak: >> >> On 3 Apr 2008, at 18:02, Jonathan Rees wrote: >>> The utility of httpRange-14 is significantly reduced as long as not >>> all minters of URIs for non-IRs adhere to it. I have no idea what >>> the penetration of httpRange-14 is, but my guess is that it is and >>> will remain low. >> >> Any backup for that guess? >> >> I'm pretty sure that everything shown in [1] adheres to it, and >> that's >> a quite significant part of the post-document Web. >> >> Best, >> Richard >> >> [1] http://richard.cyganiak.de/2007/10/lod/ > > I'm guessing the bubble size roughly corresponds to number of > resources. Very roughly, yes. > It would be interesting to think about what happens if you consider > the > number of references to a single non-IR resource as a measure. I > suppose > some big vocabularies (RDF, RDFS, DC, FOAF, etc) will be big. Which of > all those vocabularies conform to httpRange-14? I know currently DC > does > not (though it plans to). All vocabularies that use hash URIs for terms automatically conform to httpRange-14. The biggest vocabularies that use slash URIs are FOAF and DC. FOAF conforms, DC doesn't (yet). Richard > > > /Mikael > >> >> >>> >>> >>> The big win of httpRange-14, as I see it, is that it is a positive >>> affirmation of what was probably the intent of RFC2616, that a 200 >>> response reflects some inherent connection (maybe even identity, >>> sometimes) between the information received and the referent of the >>> name (whatever it is, even if its identity is a secret), and not >>> just something that a third party has said about the referent. (The >>> correct thing to say here may be different, but that's OK, any kind >>> of positive statement is fine by me.) Even if it has no practical >>> effect, I think it's a bit of pedantry that provokes thought and >>> helps to influence people to be honest. >>> >>> My two cents. >>> Jonathan >>> >>> >> >> > -- > <mikael@nilsson.name> > > Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose >
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 19:39:00 UTC