W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > January 2008

RE: HTTP URIs for real world objects

From: Peter F Brown <peter@pensive.eu>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:16:55 +0100
Message-ID: <1B2253B0359130439EA571FF30251AAE072D60@SBS.pensive.lan>
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

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.




Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 12:17:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:58 UTC