W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Re: URI note snapshot available

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:03:24 -0400
To: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Cc: Mark Wilkinson <markw@illuminae.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080429010324.GD5451@w3.org>
* Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu> [2008-04-28 21:05+0100]
> Mark Wilkinson wrote:
>>
>> "A user who places the identifier in the location bar of a web browser  
>> should get back useful information about the identified concept or  
>> object."
>>
>> Why?  It seems an awfully steep barrier-to-entry to have *all* URI's  
>> resolve to a web page as well as to whatever the URI actually  
>> represents, especially when my agent can't read...
> Well, first, if a URI is not resolved something, the purpose of using  
> web is lost.

I'd argue that a little less strongly, but yes, you miss a great
opportunity if you don't get to use the resource for
  resource documentation
  resource discovery (is there an identifier for X?)
  collision detection

This barrier seems small on the scale of scientific publications,
consensus building, or even advertising your identifiers so that
others are motivated to use them. Pehaps I don't understand the
barriers in your use-case, though. Do you have a fleet of identifiers
that you would like the rest of the world to re-use, but that are
difficult to back with HTTP URLs?

I (and a growing army of linked data zealots) believe that detectably
sound identifiers are well worth the cost of a web page. Note, I've
never been a linked data zealot myself, which I think makes me more of
a zealot 'cause I always thought it was obvious good practice.

>              Second, a URI is not resolved to a "web page," rather it is  
> resolved to a representation, which can happen to be an HTML document (a  
> web page, I guess) of the resource that the URI denotes.  Third, an  
> agent may not read "natural language" but should be able to read  
> "something", such as XML or RDF or even a binary file, yes?  This is  
> what Jonathan's document intends to say - "useful information".



> Xiaoshu
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:01:17 -0700, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> * Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> [2008-04-25 13:08-0400]
>>>>
>>>> I've been posting revisions to the URI note to the same location:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/uris/
>>>>
>>>> If you're planning on attending the next HCLS meeting/telecon (Monday?)
>>>> please take a look as the meeting approaches. Otherwise, comments are
>>>> welcome, but I suggest you read it now only if you also plan on  
>>>> reading a
>>>> later draft, as significantly more work will be done on it over the 
>>>> next
>>>> few days.
>>>
>>> I've started a QuickTips summary of this and cool-uris. It is very  
>>> direct
>>> about endorsing HTTP URIs. Attached here for consideration.
>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 20, 2008, at 5:57 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Some of you may have heard that the URI note has been revised since
>>>>> the last public draft last October.  This is indeed the case, and its
>>>>> authors are working on polishing the new version.  If you would like
>>>>> to examine a snapshot of our work it is available here:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/uris/
>>>>>
>>>>> It's still in a state of high flux so we're can't promise to act on or
>>>>> even respond to comments right now.  We plan to give you further
>>>>> drafts
>>>>> for review over the coming week and after.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
-eric

office: +1.617.258.5741 32-G528, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
mobile: +1.617.599.3509

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 01:19:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:33 UTC