- From: Peter F Brown <peter@pensive.eu>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:16:55 +0100
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>
- Cc: "Leo Sauermann" <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>, <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
There are HTTP URIs for real world objects: they are called "subject identifiers" and form part of the ISO 13250 Topic Maps standard, where a 'Topic' is a proxy for any real world subject, and a Topic can take 0 to a URIs as subject identifiers... Its sometimes really hard keeping things simple, but when There is something There that works , please use it and don't fall victim of the 'Not Invented here' syndrome. Regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Danny Ayers Sent: 16 January 2008 12:35 To: Reto Bachmann-Gmür Cc: Leo Sauermann; public-sweo-ig@w3.org; semantic-web@w3.org Subject: Re: HTTP URIs for real world objects Reto's got a point re. the TAG finding. Maybe this line could be toned down a little: "The standard Web transfer protocol, HTTP, should be used." to something like: "The standard Web transfer protocol, HTTP, can provide such a look-up mechanism". Reto's arguments at the top of this thread, * DNS is centralistic * HTTP is insecure [note] * Uncool URIs happen - while valid, apply equally well to *any* resources you might describe in RDF. I don't think deprecating the Web is the way forward :-) [note] HTTP may be quite insecure in itself, but it is possible to extend or layer increased security on top. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 12:17:25 UTC