W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: The Intuitive/ Requirement

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:19:51 -0500
Message-ID: <512CEEB7.8080808@openlinksw.com>
To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 2/26/13 12:02 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
> hello kingsley.
> On 2013-02-26 16:57 , "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> Believe or not, s/URI/URL/g makes this all simpler to understand.
>> A URL has specific characteristics e.g., the fact that URLs denote Web
>> Documents.
> not necessarily. URLs according to the classical view
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/#classical) are simply URIs that
> locate, so they can be ftp or whatever else schemes exist that have
> addressing capabilities.

Okay, they denote Internet and Web accessible resources. The key point 
is they don't denote "You" or "I" .
>> Thus far, this has been all about modelling a RESTful mechanism for
>> creating files and directories all of which you denote using URLs.
> what makes you think LDP is about creating files and directories?

To be more specific in my comments: there's an important aspect of that 
in what Henry is discussing . Of course it doesn't really mean that's 
what LDP is about, he does have the <#i> relative URI etc..

>   it's
> about managing resources, and if there is anything we have learned from
> the past months, it's that an analogy to files/directories is not
> something that helps a lot.

I agree, but there's a little issue (note my clarification above) that 
always creeps in when you say "resources" in a generic sense.

"Resources" don't belong to one realm. It's eternally problematic to 
claim "You" or "I" are resources without factoring the realms of 
demarcation. For instance, "You" and "I" (without getting to deeply into 
semiotics) are not of the Web or Internet. On the other hand, an ftp:, 
http:, scheme URLs etc.. denote resources that are of the Internet realm 
i.e., full manifestation in said realm in the form of documents bearing 

>> URLs should be hackable [4] while URIs should be opaque [5].
> hackable URIs are nice but optional and strictly an implementation issue,
> and no media type should depend on them.

Not saying or implying that per se. A URL (irrespective of scheme) 
benefits from being hackable by virtue of its parts (authority, path, 
query) and their implication on data retrieval -- be it over the 
Internet or Web. This is why I provided the links that denote images of 
quotes from Roy and TimBL. They are both making valid points from 
slightly different world views re. URI opacity.


I was a little too loose re. ,the file management metaphor. But do note, 
the "/" and relative URL aspects of Henry's comments were about the 
ability to create a collection of resources that *could* have the 
purpose of describing a plethora of things (which may or may not be of 
the Internet or Web).

LDP will/should enable RESTFul creation of resources and resource 
collections that may or may not describe real-world entities i.e., 
things that have no physical manifestation on the Internet or Web.

Hopefully, I am a little clearer, this time around :-)


> cheers,
> dret.



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 17:20:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:45 UTC