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

Re: [BioRDF] URI Resolution

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:40:34 -0500
Message-Id: <1A1842A1-159D-426A-8376-9FD49BA9BF8E@gmail.com>
Cc: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
To: "Eric Neumann" <eneumann@teranode.com>

There is an initial implementation pointed to by my slides. The goal  
of this strategy goes beyond simple string substitution. It is about  
classifying the types of resources we might use representing policies  
related to them, such as longevity,  volatility, versioning,  
identity, etc.

Best,
Alan

On Feb 6, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Eric Neumann wrote:

>
>
>> This is one of my points. Technically, the discussed problem is a  
>> simple
>> string substitution, why making it so complicated using an RDF engine
>> with a lot altered semantics plus heuristic approach.
>
> Xiaoshu,
>
> I guess mainly because string-substitution definitions are not  
> standardized on the Web, but ontologies and their inferencing are.
>
> A reference implementation would IMHO help clarify the issues...
>
> Eric
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org on behalf of Xiaoshu Wang
> Sent: Tue 2/6/2007 8:59 AM
> To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [BioRDF] URI Resolution
>
>
> Eric Neumann wrote:
>> Since much of what is being discussed here is about a "practical  
>> time to turn-around" for resolution, this is a quantitative  
>> criterion that can be measured.
>>
>> Why not set up a small demonstration for handling some class of  
>> URI's (e.g., list of genes), that have getMethods, and try  
>> accessing these as URIs from another client or server? I see even  
>> getting by with a demo that does not even use a full-fledged  
>> inference system-- simply "look for" PATTERN: /http://foo.com/ 
>> (.*)/ and re-direct or reply with getMethods...
>>
> This is one of my points. Technically, the discussed problem is a  
> simple
> string substitution, why making it so complicated using an RDF engine
> with a lot altered semantics plus heuristic approach.  If the goal  
> is to
> minimize, but not eliminate, 404, why not create a simple registry of
> "moved URI"s.  Hence, once an RDF engine encounters a new URI, try to
> dereference it natively. If failed, then check with registry.  If  
> found
> an entry, follow the new link, else, bad luck.  The implementation  
> would
> be easy and fast since it is just a simple table lookup.
>
> I am not proposing that we actually implement this (I think the  
> persist
> issue is mostly a social issue, so best practice is the best cure),  
> I am
> just trying to illustrate the point that there can be simpler solution
> to achieve the same result. Then why make it so complicated?  We
> shouldn't propose a SW solution to any problem, just because we are SW
> interest group.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Xiaoshu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 18:41:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:46 GMT