:)
It is interesting how this characterization of the httpRange-14 debate
as "angels on pinheads" so nicely parallels the exact point I have tried
so hard and long to articulate about the ambiguity of a URI's resource
identity: that ambiguity is *relative* to the beholder.
To some, certain distinctions are a pointless waste of time -- like
debating the number of angels that can dance on a pin. To others, those
same distinctions are essential! Important! And must be debated to the
end of the earth!
David
On 07/11/2013 06:20 PM, David Wood wrote:
Hi Uche,
Yes, but David Booth will reply shortly.
Over to you, David!
Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood
On Jul 11, 2013, at 16:28, Uche Ogbuji <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
<delurk>
Amen! Amen! Amen! <sing>Hallelujah!</sing>. After over a decade of
angels dancing on pinheads, and coming dangerously close to
reinventing the topic/occurrence dichotomy with httprange-14, we once
again find ourselves back in the untidy but happy world of common
sense. Well done TAG!
</delurk>
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Jeni Tennison <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear public-lod, RDF WG,
Some of you will have seen that the First Public Working Draft of
"URLs in Data" has been published by the TAG [1].
This document is the outcome of the call for change proposals [2]
for the TAG's 2005 decision on httpRange-14 [3].
The document purposefully does not address the issue of what a URI
'identifies' or how to discover additional information about it
(beyond best practice that has been documented elsewhere). It aims
instead to clarify the circumstances in which different
communities of practice may draw different conclusions about the
content of a document on the web, and how to avoid this by having
clear definitions for the properties you use when publishing data
that uses URIs.
For RDF and linked data, the implication is that applications
should focus on the statements that are being asserted about a
given URI in the data that they have (from whatever source) to
determine what to do. To avoid misinterpretation and misuse, and
particularly where there's the possibility of ambiguity (eg
'license' or 'creator'), vocabulary authors should state whether a
given property applies to the content retrieved from the subject
URI or to something that content describes.
The TAG does not intend to work further on these issues in the
immediate future, except to respond to and integrate comments on
this document. Please send any comments on the document to
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.
Cheers,
Jeni
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uddp/change-proposal-call.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/
--
Uche Ogbuji http://uche.ogbuji.net <http://uche.ogbuji.net/>
Founding Partner, Zepheira http://zepheira.com <http://zepheira.com/>
http://wearekin.org <http://wearekin.org/>
http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
http://copia.ogbuji.net <http://copia.ogbuji.net/>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
http://twitter.com/uogbuji
