- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:38:00 +0200
- To: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >> What does http://graph.facebook.com/117527568273199 identify? > > I think the first few paragraphs of > https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/api/ answer that > question pretty well. > And much clearer than Kingsley's post. I have to admit that the amount of jaron per minute in Kingsley's posts makes them hard to read. I'm not sure if this is due to terminological confusion in the community or just personal idiosyncrasies. Ditto most of the conversation around httpRange-14. I'd recommend speaking in a easy-to-understand ordinary language - *only* using technical terms when needed to make a distinction. On a larger note, the Linked Data community could do a lot better by paving the cowpaths here of Facebook (and also looking at APIs from Google's Freebase) rather than going off into design-by-commitee/academic paper-writing mode. However, I agree that Linked Data is a particular "language game" invented by TimBL and so we should ask TimBL for his opinion on "loosening" the rules of the game a bit. My fear is that the W3C-branded Linked Data might, if over-constrained to RDF/XML+303+conneg, end up basically being overtaken by industry here, just as SGML was overtaken by XML. That's my only point, mundane engineering, not philosophy believe it or not. Although my philosophical position is that we should give people flexibility and not force a priori categorization of the world besides the minimal needed for successful communication (co-ordination of collective action). > //Ed >
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:38:36 UTC