Re: HTTP Range 14

On 3/4/12 1:58 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> Your infra: looks a bit like tdb: [1].  I believe Larry's currently 
> aiming for "experimental" publication so folks can reasonably try it 
> out on the open web.


The problem with new URI schemes is that you can't get browsers to 
support them. Browsers are the main source of the current problems. For 
instance, Linked Data (where http: scheme URIs serve as names for any 
description/descriptor document subject) enables browsers effectively 
play the role of "drill-down" and "pivot" oriented clients via the 
follow-your-nose pattern courtesy of de-referencable http: scheme URIs.

As stated in my earlier response, we are practically moving from "open 
database connectivity" to "open data connectivity" where the likes of ms 
query, access crystal reports etc.. work transparently against Linked 
Data graphs exposed by http uris. In addition, you have the benefit of 
every browser being the equivalent of: ms access, ms query, crystal 
reports etc..

The importance of this transparent integration of the Web into the broad 
realm of "open data access" all depends on http: scheme uris as outlined 
in the fundamental architecture of the Web.

If people don't understand this, then we can double up effort making 
narratives clearer. What we shouldn't do is meddle with architecture and 
infrastructure that "just works".

To conclude, new uri schemes don't fix the problem at hand. Conventional 
web browsers are the fundamental problem.

> #g
> -- 
> [1]
> On 04/03/2012 17:37, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
>> I've started sketching some ideas I've been thinking about for some 
>> time into a
>> blog post;
>> I can turn it into something more formal if there's any positive 
>> feedback.



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Sunday, 4 March 2012 19:33:01 UTC