- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:06:48 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 00:03 +0000, Nathan wrote: [ . . . ] > The technical issues we need to (and can) address are: > > - we need a resource description framework (check!) > a - ensure that wherever possible each URI is used to refer to one > distinct thing I think #a is misleading as written, because it suggests that a URI either does or does not refer to a distinct thing, and IMO that is wrong. Whether a URI refers to a distinct thing depends on the graph that is being considered, i.e., it depends on the *application*. A URI may be unambiguous to one application (using that URI in one graph), but ambiguous to another (using that same URI in a different graph). In fact, in all but a vanishingly few cases, this will be the case. I think what is needed in #a is to ensure that the semantic web community agrees on a set of conventions for establishing and determining resource identity for a given graph. My writings at http://dbooth.org/2009/lifecycle/ http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/ are intended in this direction. > b - ensure that wherever possible we can refer to both information, and > the thing(s) the information is about s/possible/desirable/ because there is a cost to making this distinction, and not all applications need it. > c - ensure that wherever possible we can offer descriptions of things > which are "on" the web (images, services, gateways and pdfs for example). Agreed. > d - ensure that wherever possible the deployment of data is optimized > for the machine and network friendly. Yes. > e - consider and take in to account the way in which humans, especially > those non technically aware, will and do use URIs around the web and in > data. Yes. -- David Booth, Ph.D. http://dbooth.org/ Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 20:07:17 UTC