Re: naive question: why prefer absolute URIs to # URIs for linked data?

On 10/21/11 4:19 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com>  wrote:
>> On 10/21/11 7:33 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>>> So I can safely conclude:
>>>>>   1. resource -- distraction.
>>> I think it is; whether you agree is up to you, and I can't vouch for
>>> your safety if you do.
>>>>>   2. non information resource -- distraction.
>>> Similarly.
>>>>>   3. information resource -- a distraction that's on its way out?
>>> I don't think any of us can predict what's on its way in or out.
>>> Personally I'm not keen on the expression, however.
>> Remember, I really posted with glossary completion in mind. My opinions re.
>> resource, information resource, and non information resources are public
>> knowledge. My responses above simply sought clarification of your comments.
>> That's it.
> Perhaps I misunderstood "on its way out" - out of what? I read this as
> out of web architecture, but if you meant "on its way out of the
> document", you are right.

Yes, I meant out of the document I was reading :-)

>   If I have time I'll try to rewrite without
> "information resource"... although more likely I'll attempt this in
> some new document (like the working draft I'm supposed to be
> preparing). If it turns out for expository purposes it is better to
> have a name for the category, I may or may not use that term,
> depending on what seems to resonate best with readers.
>
>> Re. my personal opinion, which isn't a secret: I think they are all broken.
>> I prefer terminology from the broader realm of computer science. Again, I am
>> expressing this opinion *right now* because you seem to be making
>> assumptions about my opinions :-)
> Oh good, we're in agreement that all the terms are broken.

Violent agreement!

> I think this is a good reason to not use them, and then to omit any or
> all from the glossary.
>
> Does that sound good to you?

Re. glossary it is still best to include all of them. I say this because 
it create full context for their implicit problems.

> Maybe there could be a separate section: "How the terms used in this
> document relate to seemingly related terms you may have seen
> elsewhere". My worry is that it such a section would make the document
> more confusing, not less. But will take advice.

If done with goal of lassoing all the errant terms in one glossary, it 
will ultimately help people understand why many of us deem them to be 
broken.


> Thanks
> Jonathan
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen