W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: reference needed - w3.org versioned documents

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:38:12 +0100
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>
Message-Id: <2CFCFFA3-9A28-4EA6-83C8-FDC086698FC1@cyganiak.de>
To: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>

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).


> /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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:20 UTC