W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Does follow-your-nose apply in the enterprise? was: RDF for molecules, using InChI

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:31:00 +0100
Message-ID: <46CB2154.6080105@musc.edu>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, ogbujic@ccf.org, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> I identified 3 problems, and this is only one. However, DNS doesn't 
> even do that *if I reuse your URIs*, or if I reuse your URI space 
> (which you may want me to do). E.g., I say
>     http://ex.org/#Bijan a Philosopher.
>
> and you say
>     http://ex.org/#Bijan a PerfumeMaker.
>
> I believe these uses point to completely unrelated thing (in speakers 
> meaning, at least). I am most likely trying to get at the person who 
> wrote this page:
>     http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bparsia/
>
> And you are most likely trying to get at the person who profits from:
>     http://www.fragrancex.com/products/_cid_perfume-am-lid_B-am-pid_757W__products.html 
>
>
> Now, I know the line is that one of these uses is *authoritative*, 
> i.e., the "owner" of the URI is "right" about it (let's put aside how 
> crazy I think that is :)) But suppose all the URI owner says is:
>     http://ex.org/#Bijan a Person.
>
> And you and I want to say something about...Bijan. Because we think 
> Bijan rocks and want to say so.
So, in this case, a machine would reason that 
"http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bparsia/" also profited from  
"http://www.fragrancex.com/products/_cid_perfume-am-lid_B-am-pid_757W__products.html".  
But from human perspective, if the above two persons are different 
individual and the URI "http://ex.org/#Bijan" is used to identify only 
one of them.  So, someone is either ignorant or trying to steal the 
other's identity.  In fact, without a mean to "dereference" the URI, how 
can we know which is the case?

So, the reason that we need a URN is because we want "ambiguity"? It 
feels strange to me why this should be promoted.

I think the context of discussion should be framed a little bit of more 
clearly.  Although the thread sounds like HTTP vs. LSID, it is , in 
fact, more about URL vs. URN.  HTTP URI is put up front mostly due to 
its success as the mostly supported and used URL.  Had LSID been the 
most popular, the argument now can well be LSID vs. URN.

The "URN" that Bijian is talking about now is not the URN that is 
defined in URI nor the one envisioned by the LSID designer. For those 
types of URN, there are already too much argument argument and has been 
summarized in [1]. 

The URN Bijian/Chimezie/and others are talking about, at least from the 
given use cases, is intended for a URI that has no associated 
transportation protocol whatsoever.  Perhaps, we should give it a name, 
something like, URNN (any good suggestion) so to narrow the scope of 
discussion.

1. URNs, namespaces and registries: 
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.xml.
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 17:41:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:49 GMT