On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reyno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 21:22 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > >> On 2011-06 -16, at 16:41, Ian Davis wrote: > >> > The problem here is that there are so few things that people want to >> > say about web pages compared with the multitude of things they want to >> > say about every other type of thing in existence. >> >> Well, that is a wonderful new thing. For a long while it was difficult to >> put data on the web, while there is quite a lot of metadata. >> Wonderful idea that the semantic web may be beating the document >> web hands down but that's not totally clear that we should trash the >> use of URIs for use to refer to documents as do in the document web. > > I'm sure Ian wasn't claiming the data web is "beating" the document web > and equally sure that you don't really think he was :)
Yes, absolutely. > > FWIW my experience is also that most of the data that people want to > publish *in RDF* is about things rather than web pages. Clearly there > *are* good use cases for capturing web page metadata in RDF but I've not > seen that many in-the-wild cases where people wanted to publish data > about *both* the web page and the thing. > > That's why Ian's "Back to Basics" suggestion works for me [as a fall > back from "just use #"]. My interpretation is that, unlike most of this > thread, it wasn't saying "use URIs ambiguously" but saying "the > interpretation of the URI is up to the publisher and is discovered from > the data not from the protocol response, it is legitimate to use a > http-no-# URI to denote a thing if that is what you really want to do". > Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. > Thus if I want to publish a table of e.g. population statistics at > http://foobar.gov.uk/datasets/population then I can do so and use that > URI within the RDF data as denoting the data set. As publisher I'm > saying "this is a qb:DataSet not a web page, anything that looks like a > web page when you point a browser at it is just a rendering related to > that data and that rendering isn't being given a separate URI so you can > talk about it, sorry about that". > >> If you use HTTP 200 for something different, then >> you break my ability to look at a page, review it, and then >> express my review in RDF, using the page's URI as the identifier. > > Not quite. It is saying that you can't give a review for my > http://foobar.gov.uk/datasets/population web page because the RDF > returned by the URI says it denotes a dataset not the web page. You can > still review the dataset itself. You can review other web pages which > don't return RDF data saying they are something other than a web page. > > [As an aside, I would claim that most reviews are in fact about things - > restaurants, books, music - not about the web pages.] > Quite. When a facebook user clicks the "Like" button on an IMDB page they are expressing an opinion about the movie, not the page. Ian
