Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: URIs harmful
 Joshua Allen wrote: [[ > stacked up against that (third) view. In any case you are going to have to > articulate your view because I see no "FIRE". I hope you are not once again confusing your local perspective with the global one. I think that many people see the problem exactly as I have stated it. I think that many people have understood the many clear examples I've put forth of why it's crass to overload http: identifiers like this. If *you* don't, it could mean that you aren't listening carefully enough, or are incapable of seeing reason. It really doesn't matter what it means, though, since you aren't the person I have to convince. ]] I guess it comes down to this: I see peaceful coexistence of REST and the Semantic Web. I also _firmly_ believe the Semantic Web should be based on the current Web. Call that a local perspective, but it is a perspective shared by some but not all people who are spending time working on "Semantic Web" sorts of problems. [[ > actual fire. In any case no major "Semantic Web" player advocates using Gee, what would it take for me to become a big-time "semantic web playa"? Silly I'd have thought that one could know who the players are by their fruits. But I don't see any fruits other then a few locally-contextual proofs-of-concept, and the people who think HTTP extends to "infinity and beyond". ]] I don't mean to imply that you as a person are not a "major player" but since you are using your microsoft.com email, I will assume that you are speaking in your capacity as an employee of Microsoft. Certainly the "Semantic Web" (capitalized) has been a project led by TimBLs and the W3C. The RDFCore and WebOnt WGs, have participation from a _wide_ variety of folks, both academic and industry, large and small. Among companies the size of Microsoft, participation includes: IBM, Sun, HP, Philips, Lucent. Microsoft has been notably missing. Why not join? If it is not a worthwhile activity then why say that x, y or z view is important to the SW? Who would care? In any case, what I meant to say was that the position you've taken is not one that is dealt with, or much discussed, among the SW community. Now all the activities of the SW WGs are totally out in public so anyone is free to scour the emails, as well as those from daml.org, www-rdf-interest, www-rdf-logic, and rdfig.xmlhack.com . You will see that I am correct about this _specific issue_ not being a major topic of conversation -- although some related issues are discussed. And on the other hand, I freely admit that the "range of http" issue has been one of great contention and to be perfectly honest, although I am leaning more and more toward Fielding's position, I am not totally convinced one way or the other, and so, yes, if you were able to come up with a persuasive argument, I really would be willing to listen. Instead, you seem to be saying the same thing over and over. As for most of the public. I'm pretty sure that most people wouldn't care what this argument is about. I don't think there really _is_ a "global perspective" Jonathan speaking _only_ for myself i.e. locally 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
