On 11/4/10 2:09 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
Nathan,
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 17:51 +0000, Nathan wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
Hi all,
The subject of this email is the title of a blog post I wrote last
night questioning whether we actually need to continue with the 303
redirect approach for Linked Data. My suggestion is that replacing it
with a 200 is in practice harmless and that nothing actually breaks on
the web. Please take a moment to read it if you are interested.
http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
Ian,
Please, don't.
303 is a PITA, and it has detrimental affects across the board from
network load through to server admin. Likewise #frag URIs have there own
set of PITA features (although they are nicer on the network and servers).
However, and very critically (if you can get more critical than
critical!), both of these patterns / constraints are here to ensure that
different things have different names, and without that distinction
our data is junk.
Our data is already junk. What part of that seems unclear?
See:
http://www.mkbergman.com/925/ontotext-sd-form-strategic-partnership/
For an unbiased assessment.
Please!
How have you arrived at the extremely subjective designation: unbiased
assessment?
An opinion isn't inherently objective, irrespective of opinion maker,
its at best a subjective claim.
This goes beyond your and my personal opinions, or those of anybody
here, the constraints are there so that in X months time when
"multi-corp" trawls the web, analyses it and releases billions of
statements saying like {</foo> :hasFormat "x"; sioc:about
dbpedia:Whatever } about each doc on the web, that all of those
statements are said about documents, and not about you or I, or anything
else real, that they are said about the right "thing", the correct name
is used.
And this is critically important, to ensure that in X years time when
somebody downloads the RDF of 2010 in a big *TB sized archive and
considers the graph of RDF triples, in order to make sense of some parts
of it for something important, that the data they have isn't just
unreasonable junk.
Sorry, it is already junk.
Really?
Is the world perfect? No, but we do have some sense of what things are
albeit subjectively.
Remember? The failure to distinguish between
addresses in an address space and identifiers is mistake that keeps on
giving.
So, just because the Web started off as an Information Resource Space,
it cannot evolve into a Data Space? Which also enables it to evolve into
a Knowledge Space.
Fix the mistake and all the cruft that is trying to cover over the
mistake will be unnecessary.
Our data may still be junk in that case but for different reasons. ;-)
Anything can be "Junk" just as another subjective moniker, like
"Beautiful", "Ugly" etc.. Linked Data doesn't fix subjectivity.
Linked Data helps us extract "What", "When", "Where", and "Who" from
streams of data traveling across the InterWeb. It also contributes to
the process of computing "Why".
<snip>
But, for whatever reasons, we've made our choices, each has pro's and
cons, and we have to live with them - different things have different
name, and the giant global graph is usable. Please, keep it that way.
The problem is that you want *other* people to live with your choices.
Given the lack of adoption for some of them, those other people are
making other choices.
I would like to agree with you on "choice" but context is completely
mangled i.e., you opening salvo re. "Junk" was 100% subjective but
presented as objective by some strange triangulation to "unbiased" etc..
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
