On 26/03/12 16:05, Tom Heath wrote:
On 23 March 2012 15:35, Steve Harris<steve.har...@garlik.com> wrote:
On 23 Mar 2012, at 14:05, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
2012/3/23 Melvin Carvalho<melvincarva...@gmail.com>:
I dont think, even the wildest optimist, could have predicted the success of
the current architecture (both pre and post HR14).
The votes of confidence are interesting to me, as I have not been
hearing them previously. It does appear we have a divided community,
with some voices feeling that 303 will be the death of linked data,
and others saying hash and 303 are working well. Where the center of
gravity lies, I have no way of telling (and perhaps it's not important
as long as any disagreement, or even ignorance, remains). As Larry
Masinter said at the last TAG telcon, things do not seem to be
converging.
I'm sure many people are just deeply bored of this discussion.
No offense intended to Jeni and others who are working hard on this,
but *amen*, with bells on!
No argument.
One of the things that bothers me most about the many years worth of
httpRange-14 discussions (and the implications that HR14 is
partly/heavily/solely to blame for slowing adoption of Linked Data) is
the almost complete lack of hard data being used to inform the
discussions. For a community populated heavily with scientists I find
that pretty tragic.
The primary reason for having put my name to the proposal was that I
personally been adversely affected. I have been involved in client
discussions that have been derailed by someone bringing up httprange-14.
I have been in discussions with clients where 303s are not acceptable
(thanks to CDN behaviour). I have both received and (sadly) sent out
data that is broken and caused errors due to cut/paste from the browser
bar thanks to httprange-14.
My anecdotal evidence is that the nature of the recurrent discussion can
create or reinforce an impression of the area being too academic, not
ready for practical use.
I don't claim that httprange-14 is solely or substantially to blame for
holding back linked data. I don't claim that my personal experience is
necessarily widespread or representative. There is no science on offer
here, move on.
But ... if, with the current TAG process, there is a chance of a new
resolution that reduces any of these problems then it is worth a tiny
bit of effort. If there is a chance the new resolution will be so good
as to damp down this permathread then it is worth more effort. If it
kills the permathread completely then I owe someone at least a crate of
beer.
Dave
