Re: [ontolog-forum] Webby objects

On 11/16/12 2:15 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> >     In RDF, it's not clear whether a name refers to a document, to
>> >     its content, or to an operation specified by its content.
> RDF is quite clear on this: RDF semantics completely ignores what the URI resolves to using HTTP (or indeed any other xxTP). This was an early, and quite conscious, design decision.  So we have what a URI denotes, and what it "identifies" (in the current W3 jargon) and these are (ab initio) independent of one another.  Users may choose to define whatever relationship they feel most useful, varying from nothing to identity. Back in 2003, it was felt (IMO correctly) that to legislate on this would be counterproductive until a body of usage experience had been accumulated. Sure enough, several divergent views are emerging.
>
> The notorious http-range-14 decision made this depend upon the HTTP return code (200 or 303: basically, if you want to talk about a Web "document", use the identifying URI to refer to it; otherwise, the source should generate a 303 redirect), which I howled against as insanity when it was proposed, but which I confess has beeen found to work quite well in practice, cf. DBpedia.  The current "linked data" view is that the URI should resolve to a source of information about the thing denoted, typically more data.
>

Another snippet from a related conversation [1][2] about matters we are 
currently discussing re. WebID and HTTP URIs.

1. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2012-11/msg00051.html -- 
URI everything and everything is Cool revisted
2. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2012-11/msg00047.html -- 
earlier reference from prior post .

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen