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

Re: [BioRDF] URI Resolution

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:35 -0500
Message-ID: <45C79AF3.3040607@musc.edu>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org

> The lie would be if you did a geturl on 
> http://purl.example.com/#aColor and retrieved the bytes "010203" and 
> you did a get on  http://foo.com/#aColor and retrieved the bytes 
> "030201". Remember, you said they were sameAs, and same information 
> resources have the same bytes. That was the point. Since this is the 
> case, it doesn't matter if you retrieve one or the other of them, 
> which was justification for saying that you may try any getMethod and 
> stop after the first one that retrieves something.
> I'll point out once again the confusion between 
> NotAnInformationResource and InformationResource. Colors are not 
> information resources.
The owl:sameAs is explained by the semantics of RDF model. Not 
byte-by-byte.  The same RDF model can be coded in a great many ways in 
RDF/XML as well as with various flavors of n-3.  On the other hand, the 
the same-byte stream given to you can mean different thing as well.  For 
instance,  if the same byte of an RDF document passed to you with a MIME 
type of image/jpeg, you can certainly viewed it as an image.  I think 
you have probably messed up here.

To make what you have proposed work, you must cleanly separate the 
resources that you are discussing.  That means, you need another another 
URI (let's dub it URIs) that points to the "URI" (let's dub it URIr) 
pointing to the resource of your interest.  Then, you can say that the 
all URIs is a string. Then, perhaps, you can describe them more 
meaningfully.  But again, you need to define URIss, and URIsss, etc...It 
reminds me of what Godel's incomplete theorem has told us - Dont't waste 
our time on designing a system that can do everything because there 
isn't any!  You will always end up with more, and often harder, 
questions than what you have before.  URI is the foundation of RDF 
because each node and edges are defined by a URI.  And now you are 
trying to define node of node, nodes of arc, arc of arc, arc of nodes. 
And you won't have a complete solution, period.

I remember we discussed this problem before.  And my point was that the 
RDF world is an open world.  Therefore, given one URI, you need to have 
a solution that can promise the knowledge of all possible URI's 
resolution.  If you cann't, then you will always end up with some 404, 
then you are back to the problem.  If you can, tell me this chunk 
knowledge won't be huge? And how you are going to syn the knowledge on 
all machines? (It doesn't matter if you call it DNS or not, it would be 
something similar).  You honestly think this can work? I really don't. 

Received on Monday, 5 February 2007 21:01:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:29 UTC