On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Leigh Dodds <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, can we turn things on their head a little. Instead of starting out > from a position that we *must* have two different resources, can we > instead highlight to people the *benefits* of having different > identifiers? That makes it more of a best practice discussion and one > based on trade-offs: e.g. this class of software won't be able to > process your data correctly, or you'll be limited in how you can > publish additional data or metadata in the future. > > I don't think I've seen anyone approach things from that perspective, > but I can't help but think it'll be more compelling. And it also has > the benefits of not telling people that they're right or wrong, but > just illustrate what trade-offs they are making. > > Is this not something we can do on this list? I suspect it'd be more > useful than attempting to categorise, yet again, the problems of hash > vs slash URIs. Although a canonical list of those might be useful to > compile once and for all. > > Anyone want to start things off? Sure. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/09/referential-use.html > As a leading question: does anyone know of any deployed semantic web > software that will reject or incorrectly process data that flagrantly > ignores httprange-14? Tabulator.
