Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi,
On 4 November 2010 17:51, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
I think it's useful to continually assess the state of the art to see
whether we're on track. My experience, which seems to be confirmed by
comments from other people on this thread, is that we're seeing push
back from the wider web community -- who have already published way
more data that we have -- on the technical approach we've been
advocating, so looking for a middle ground seems useful.
fully agree :)
Different things do have different names, but conflating IR/NIR is not
part of Ian's proposal which addresses the publishing mechanism only.
This is really simple - forget about your data, the proposal and all of
that, if you can GET a URI (all slash URIs) then something somewhere
will say <uri> a :Document (not much of a problem), then describe what
it's about (bigger problem). With 303 the odds are 50/50 that they'll
pick the correct uri to treat as a document, with 200 the odds are 0/100
that they'll pick the correct uri to treat as a document.
What's the point in you saying:
</toucan> a :Toucan; :describedBy </doc> .
If the rest of the world is saying:
</toucan> a :Document; :primaryTopic ex:Toucan .
Follow?
