On 11/4/10 12:06 PM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Kingsley Idehen<[email protected]> wrote:
I don't presume. I prefer to use terms that are familiar with the
people on this list who might be reading the message. Introducing
unnecessary capitalised phrases distracts from the message.
Again, you presume. Capitalization might not work for you, but you are not
the equivalent of an entire mailing list audience. You are one individual
entitled to a personal opinion and preferences.
I hope you agree i have the freedom to express those opinions.
100%.
But taking your line of thought, of what relevance to the main topic?
Anyway, translation:
What's the problem with having a variety of methods for using LINKs to
associate a "Non Information Resource" with an "Information Resource"
that
describes it (i.e., carries its structured representation)? Why place an
implementation detail at the front of the Linked Data narrative?
It's already at the front, and as I say in my post it's an impediment
to using Linked Data by mainstream developers.
I don't believe its already at the front. I can understand if there was some
quasi mandate that put it at the front. Again, you are jumping to
conclusions, then pivoting off the conclusions to make a point. IMHO: Net
effect, Linked Data concept murkiness and distraction. You are inadvertently
perpetuating a misconception.
Thank you for your opinion. I don't believe I am jumping to conclusions.
I think you are, of course this could be inadvertent, at least so I hope.
There is. I find it surprising that you're unaware of it because it's
in all the primary documents about publishing Linked Data.
Please provide a URL for the document that establishes this mandate. I know
of no such document. Of course I am aware of documents that offer
suggestions and best practice style guidelines.
Here is one cited by Leigh just now: http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/
That document has 3 occurrences of "must", not a single occurrence
applies to 303 redirection. Zero occurrences of "mandate" .
Also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html
Zero occurrences of "must" or "mandate" .
And http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/
6 occurrences of must, proximity shown in snippet below for context:
"... URIs that identify non-information resources must be set up in **
one of these ways **: Either the data source must return an HTTP
response containing an HTTP 303 redirect to an information resource
describing the non-information resource, as discussed earlier in this
document. Or the URI for the non-information resource must be formed by
taking the URI of the related information resource and appending a
fragment identifier (e.g. #foo), as discussed in Recipe 7.1. ..."
IMHO. You've jumped to a conclusion, and then pivoted from there, as per
my initial assertion.
Nobody ever mandated 303 redirection. It has always been an option, and
so it should remain.
The only thing that should be mandatory re. Linked Data is this: HTTP
based
Entity Names should Resolve to structured Descriptors that are Human
and/or
Machine decipherable.
Are you saying that requesting a URI should return a description
document?
Resolve to a Descriptor Document which may exist in a variety of formats.
Likewise, Descriptor documents (RDF docs, for instance) should clearly
identify their Subject(s) via HTTP URI based Names.
Example (in this example we have 1:1 re. Entity Name and Descriptor for
sake
of simplicity):
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paris> -- Name
<http://dbpedia.org/page/Paris> -- Descriptor Resource (HTML+RDFa) this
resource will expose other representations via<head/> (<link/> + @rel)
or
"Link:" in response headers etc..
Not sure what you are trying to say here. I must be misunderstanding
because you appear to be claiming that
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paris> is a name but
That is a Name via HTTP URI (using its Name aspect).
This is an interesting distinction between the resource and a name.
Can you restate it in a new thread so we don't add noise to the 303
discussion
Not noise!
URI Abstraction covers:
1. Names -- may or may not resolve
2. Addresses (URLs) -- where data resides.
Using what looks like an Address as a Name, doesn't undermine existence
of the Name aspect re. overarching URI abstraction.
Linked Data, the concept, mandates that the data is Human or Machine
decipherable ("useful") via structure outlined via a data model.
We did have a computer industry pre. Web. TimBL's URI abstraction is one
of the coolest innovations ever! It also remains one of the most widely
misunderstood innovations ever!
URI abstraction is why the concept of Linked Data at InterWeb scale is
going to happen. Just as the Web of Linked Documents has, also at
InterWeb scale.
[SNIP]
BTW - how would you explain your claim on Twitter about 303 being
dropped? Here is the excerpt:
@iand: seems that the lod mailing list is overwhelmingly supportive of
**dropping** 303 redirects #linkeddata.
I guess the statement above is also accurate, clear, and reflective of
this conversation, right?
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
