On 2012-03 -25, at 07:31, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> [..]
> Yes, as I argued here [3] I strongly believe that casting the separation of
> IR and NIR as a best practice rather than a vital necessity is the right way
> to go.
>
Let me assume that you meant:
> [..]
> Yes, as I argued here [3] I strongly believe that casting the separation of
> IR and the thing it describes as a best practice rather than a vital
> necessity is the right way to go.
>
To actually confused those things in a system is to me is absolutely
unacceptable.
When I build rule file or systems some of them deal with documents and
some with things that those documents describe, and in general they do both.
If you want to define a new proposal then it had better be one where for
a given URL I know which it identifiers.
Pre - HR14, I could do that by looking at the URL.
Post-HR14, I had to do a network operation to find out, but I can put
up with that if it REALLY helps people.
With your change proposal, there are times when you don't know at all!
For example, under your change proposal does
"http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2372108&pageno=11";
identifify?
If
card:i :likes
<http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2372108&pageno=11>.
Do I like a book or a whale?
To not know is unacceptable to me.
And to merge the two the IR and what it describes, as the same thing, is
unacceptable too.
Tim
> Cheers,
>
> Jeni
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2012Mar/0143.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2012Mar/0144.html
> [3] http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/159
> --
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
>
>
>
