W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Fwd: Comments solicited: "Providing and discovering definitions of URIs"

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:23:31 +0100
Message-ID: <4E0A0003.8040904@ninebynine.org>
To: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I've been tracking this; I don't think it bears directly on a provenance model 
or access mechanism, but it may have some implications for connecting provenance 
with the thing whose provenance is described.  This parallels the license 
example that has come up in TAG discussions.

#g
--


Paul Groth wrote:
> This may be important to have a look at with respect to the PAQ task force.
> 
> In particular, if we think any of the approaches are suited for our 
> needs it would be good to let the W3C's technical architecture group know.
> 
> However, this may require us first agreeing on the approaches we deem best.
> 
> Thanks,
> Paul
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Comments solicited: "Providing and discovering definitions of 
> URIs"
> Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:13:12 +0000
> Resent-From: public-lod@w3.org
> Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:12:40 +0000
> From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> 
> Comments solicited: "Providing and discovering definitions of URIs"
> 
> (message being sent to www-tag, bcc: public-lod and semantic-web)
> 
> As most of you know, the 9-year-old "httpRange-14" turf war is an
> annoyance and embarrassment in efforts to develop RDF, linked data,
> the Semantic Web, and Web architecture.
> 
> As a step toward getting closure I've prepared a document (with
> the help of the TAG and the AWWSW task group):
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/20110625/
> 
> which attempts to record the variety of approaches that have been
> offered.  I have attempted to record in a neutral way all the main
> proposals that have been put forth and present them in a way that
> permits them to be compared.  I'm sure I have failed to be completely
> neutral, but if so I'm confident you will tell me.
> 
> How to actually get closure is yet to be determined, but a first step
> might be to get all the relevant information collected in this
> document so that we all know what the issues and opportunities are.
> 
> This document is for informational purposes only and its future is
> not yet determined. I would have polished it a bit more but given
> current debate on www-tag and public-lod I felt it was more important
> to get it out than to tie up loose ends.
> 
> Please comment on the www-tag@w3.org list. I will revise the document
> based on comments received.
> 
> If you wish to review the debate please see
>   http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Webography
> 
> Best
> Jonathan
> 
> Abstract
> 
> The specification governing Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
> [rfc3986] allows URIs to mean anything at all, and this unbounded
> flexibility is exploited in a variety contexts, notably the Semantic
> Web and Linked Data. To use a URI to mean something, an agent (a)
> selects a URI, (b) provides a definition of the URI in a manner that
> permits discovery by agents who encounter the URI, and (c) uses the
> URI. Subsequently other agents may not only understand the URI (by
> discovering and consulting the definition) but may also use the URI
> themselves.
> 
> A few widely known methods are in use to help agents provide and
> discover URI definitions, including RDF fragment identifier resolution
> and the HTTP 303 redirect. Difficulties in using these methods have
> led to a search for new methods that are easier to deploy, and perform
> better, than the established ones. However, some of the proposed
> methods introduce new problems, such as incompatible changes to the
> way metadata is written. This report brings together in one place
> information on current and proposed practices, with analysis of
> benefits and shortcomings of each.
> 
> The purpose of this report is not to make recommendations but rather
> to initiate a discussion that might lead to consensus on the use of
> current and/or new methods.
> 
> (this is TAG ISSUE-57 / ACTION-579)
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 16:24:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:32 GMT