Re: [BioRDF] URI Resolution

>> The GET problem seems pressing and almost tractable,
>> and we have a lot of experience with it. Finding SPARQL endpoints is
>> novel, everyone's using ad hoc solutions, and the need for shared
>> solutions is not so pressing.
>>     
>
> I am confused about the use cases that you are attempting to address.
> In reading the URI Resolution problem statement[1] the problem that is
> described sounds to me like what you are calling the GET problem -- not
> one that would require SPARQL endpoints.  It sounds like you are trying
> to address a much broader set of use cases than is clear from the
> document.
>   
I got confused too.  A SPARQL endpoint is a service endpoint. But a URI 
or (HTTP GET in your opinion) represent a resource. Of course, the 
former can be used to help the later, but I don't think it will ever 
replace the latter.
>> Be careful about the word "authoritative" - I know Tim B-L likes the
>> word, but authority is earned, not assumed; just because a host says
>> something about one of its resources doesn't mean what's said is true.
>> E.g., a server could easily be mistaken about authorship or licensing
>> terms for a document, and semantic-web phishing scenarios are pretty
>> easy to concoct, especially as more and more companies go bankrupt and
>> lose their domain registrations.
>>     
>
> That isn't quite what I meant by "authoritative".  I meant it in the
> sense that (I think) the WebArch[2] uses the term.  You are quite right
> that "authoritative" information served by a URI owner is not
> necessarily true, but it *is* authoritative in that the owner of the URI
> has the *authority* (i.e., is authorized by the WebArch and social
> convention -- see [2] ) to serve information that defines what resource
> the URI identifies.
>   
I agree with David too. I think Jonathan has interpreted the 
"authoritative" too literally. The "authoritative" in the Web means more 
about the "authorship" of the resource.  It has nothing to do with the 
right or wrong of the statements.
> I, for one, would find that very helpful, and I wonder if some of the
> disagreement between Alan and Xiaoshu may also be rooted in different
> people making different assumptions about the problem you are trying to
> address.
>   
Perhaps because my argument is always that the URI problem is a much 
more fundamental problem.  Using SPARQL endpoint to solve URI's 
stability is like an acrobat trying to balance himself on a string. Sure 
a skilled acrobat can do it to a great extent, but no matter how great 
his skill is, he won't eliminate the danger of falling off unless he put 
his footing on a solid ground.

Xiaoshu

Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 16:11:46 UTC