Using “Punning” to Answer httpRange-14
Jeni Tennison writes in her introduction:
As part of the TAG’s work on httpRange-14, Jonathan Rees has assessed how a variety of use cases could be met by various proposals put before the TAG. The results of the assessment are a matrix which shows that “punning” is the most promising method, unique in not failing on either ease of use (use case J) or HTTP consistency (use case M).
In normal use, “punning” is about making jokes based around a word that has two meanings. In this context, “punning” is about using the same URI to mean two (or more) different things. It’s most commonly used as a term of art in OWL but normal people don’t need to worry particularly about that use. Here I’ll explore what that might actually mean as an approach to the httpRange-14 issue.
Jeni writes quite well and if you are really interested in the details of this self-inflicted wound, read her post in its entirety.
The post is summarized when she says:
Thus an implication of this approach is that the people who define languages and vocabularies must specify what aspect of a resource a URI used in a particular way identifies.
Her proposal makes disambiguation explicit. A strategy that is more likely to be successful than others.
Following that statement she treats how to usefully proceed from that position. (No guarantee her position will carry the day but it would be a good thing if it does.)
[…] over odd questions is always more enjoyable than serious disputes of grave concern in our own. (See Using “Punning” to Answer httpRange-14 for […]
Pingback by Modeling vs Mining? « Another Word For It — May 16, 2012 @ 12:08 pm