On 3/27/12 11:17 AM, Michael Smethurst wrote:
Circa. 2006-2007, with Linked Data bootstrap via the LOD project as top priority, the goal was simple: unleash Linked Data in a manner that just worked. That meant catering for:No sane publisher trying to handle a decent amount of traffic is gonna follow the dbpedia pattern of doing it in one step (conneg to 303) and picking up 2 server hits per request. I've said here before that the dbpedia publishing pattern is an anti-pattern and shouldn't be encouraged
1. frameworks and libraries that send hash URIs over the wire 2. work with all browsers, no excuses.Linked Data is now alive and in broad use (contrary to many misconceptions to the contrary), there is still a need for slash URIs. This isn't a matter of encouragement or discouragement, its a case of what works for the project goals at hand. If slash URIs don't work then use hash URIs or vice versa. Platforms that conform to Linked Data meme principles should be able to handle these scenarios.
BTW - Imagine a scenario where Linked Data only worked with one style of URI, where would we be today or tomorrow, re. Linked Data? Being dexterous and unobtrusive has to be a celebrated feature rather than a point of perpetual distraction.
As is always the case, a good system must pass the "horses for courses" test. Linked Data -- courtesy of the underlying architecture of the World Wide Web -- does that with aplomb modulo the "distraction star" wanderings of planet HttpRange-14 into its solar system every so many months :-)
-- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder& CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
