|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 6:22 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 7:13 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 7:22 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 8:00 am|
|Giovanni Tummarello||Nov 4, 2010 8:21 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 8:23 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 8:27 am|
|Leigh Dodds||Nov 4, 2010 8:38 am|
|William Waites||Nov 4, 2010 8:44 am|
|Giovanni Tummarello||Nov 4, 2010 8:50 am|
|Leigh Dodds||Nov 4, 2010 8:53 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 8:56 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 8:58 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 9:06 am|
|Bradley Allen||Nov 4, 2010 9:07 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 9:10 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 9:13 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 9:17 am|
|bill...@planet.nl||Nov 4, 2010 9:20 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 9:22 am|
|Bradley Allen||Nov 4, 2010 9:25 am|
|Harry Halpin||Nov 4, 2010 9:33 am|
|Robin YANG||Nov 4, 2010 9:52 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 9:55 am|
|David Wood||Nov 4, 2010 9:56 am|
|Mike Kelly||Nov 4, 2010 10:12 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 10:14 am|
|Patrick Durusau||Nov 4, 2010 10:17 am|
|David Wood||Nov 4, 2010 10:24 am|
|Patrick Durusau||Nov 4, 2010 10:37 am|
|Nathan||Nov 4, 2010 10:51 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 11:06 am|
|Nathan||Nov 4, 2010 11:08 am|
|Patrick Durusau||Nov 4, 2010 11:09 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 11:18 am|
|Ian Davis||Nov 4, 2010 11:24 am|
|Robert Fuller||Nov 4, 2010 11:38 am|
|Nathan||Nov 4, 2010 11:39 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Nov 4, 2010 11:42 am|
|112 later messages|
|Subject:||Re: Is 303 really necessary?|
|From:||Ian Davis (me...@iandavis.com)|
|Date:||Nov 4, 2010 9:06:57 am|
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kide...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
I don't presume. I prefer to use terms that are familiar with the people on this list who might be reading the message. Introducing unnecessary capitalised phrases distracts from the message.
Again, you presume. Capitalization might not work for you, but you are not the equivalent of an entire mailing list audience. You are one individual entitled to a personal opinion and preferences.
I hope you agree i have the freedom to express those opinions.
What's the problem with having a variety of methods for using LINKs to associate a "Non Information Resource" with an "Information Resource" that describes it (i.e., carries its structured representation)? Why place an implementation detail at the front of the Linked Data narrative?
It's already at the front, and as I say in my post it's an impediment to using Linked Data by mainstream developers.
I don't believe its already at the front. I can understand if there was some quasi mandate that put it at the front. Again, you are jumping to conclusions, then pivoting off the conclusions to make a point. IMHO: Net effect, Linked Data concept murkiness and distraction. You are inadvertently perpetuating a misconception.
Thank you for your opinion. I don't believe I am jumping to conclusions.
There is. I find it surprising that you're unaware of it because it's in all the primary documents about publishing Linked Data.
Please provide a URL for the document that establishes this mandate. I know of no such document. Of course I am aware of documents that offer suggestions and best practice style guidelines.
Here is one cited by Leigh just now: http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/
The only thing that should be mandatory re. Linked Data is this: HTTP based Entity Names should Resolve to structured Descriptors that are Human and/or Machine decipherable.
Are you saying that requesting a URI should return a description document?
Resolve to a Descriptor Document which may exist in a variety of formats. Likewise, Descriptor documents (RDF docs, for instance) should clearly identify their Subject(s) via HTTP URI based Names.
Example (in this example we have 1:1 re. Entity Name and Descriptor for sake of simplicity):
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paris> -- Name <http://dbpedia.org/page/Paris> -- Descriptor Resource (HTML+RDFa) this resource will expose other representations via<head/> (<link/> + @rel) or "Link:" in response headers etc..
Not sure what you are trying to say here. I must be misunderstanding because you appear to be claiming that <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paris> is a name but
That is a Name via HTTP URI (using its Name aspect).
This is an interesting distinction between the resource and a name. Can you restate it in a new thread so we don't add noise to the 303 discussion
I don't really see what relevance this all has to the issue of 303 redirection though. We are all agreed that things are not usually their own descriptions, we are discussing how that knowledge should be conveyed using Linked Data.
Of course, my comments are irrelevant, off topic. If that works for you, then good for you. You spent all this time debating an irrelevance.
That looks like a natural close to this particular part of the debate then.
FWIW - 303 is an implementation detail, RDF is an implementation detail, and so is SPARQL. When you front line any conversation about the concept of Linked Data with any of the aforementioned, you are only going to make the core concept incomprehensible.