Mark Nottingham wrote:
Hi Kingsley,
We've been back and forth on this issue a *lot*. The current solution is still
to define the syntax, but not the semantics, of rev, because we can't come to
consensus on it, and it's widely agreed that it isn't well-used in many cases
(not necessarily yours).
Regards,
I know there has been a lot of back and forth on this matter.
Situation as you describe it:
Nobody has arrived a consensus about something that isn't widely used.
Thus, our emerging use case should really be preserved since there isn't
any collateral damage :-)
I could understand if it was widely used in a variety of ways, but this
clearly isn't the case, so I think we can also safely own the semantics
of this for now since its being put into very practical use.
Kingsley
On 12/05/2010, at 11:00 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Mark,
I just read your note [1] re. @rev. Is it judicious to drop @rev just on the basis of potential confusion? In reality, we used @rev in DBpedia to completely demystify what's happening re. Linked Data i.e., the critical relation between a Descriptor Documents and its Unambiguously Named (via Generic HTTP URI) Subject.
In one single URL-rewrite move we've been able to solve a complex and typically jargon ladened riddle. If you veer people away from @rev, we are taking steps backward.
Links:
1. http://xml.coverpages.org/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10.txt -- Web
Linking Note
2.
http://mediterraneanceramics.blogspot.com/2010/05/document-and-concept-this-and-how.html
-- a post about Descriptor Documents and their Unambiguously Named Subjects .
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web:
http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
