W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Certificate Triplify Challenge

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:27:14 -0500
Message-ID: <4F0E1AD2.8060103@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 1/11/12 6:07 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>
> On 11 Jan 2012, at 20:56, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/12 2:45 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>> That depends on what your definition of the Web is. Tim Berners 
>>> Lee's definition was "a mapping from URIs onto meaning"
>>> http://blogs.oracle.com/bblfish/entry/possible_worlds_and_the_web
>>>
>>>> > >  The end destination is inevitable. WebID or NetID, note, I've 
>>>> seen this movie before.
>>>> > >  I say "Check!" so your move next:-)
>>> Well if the game is a good spec, then my answer is above. (but 
>>> perhaps let's not get sidetracked in the meaning of the web, part).
>
>> If you want to hone into definitions, then start with URIs.
>>
>> URI abstraction enables one associate URIs with Descriptor Resources 
>> for their Referents.
>
> That is not a very clear definition of URIs but I understand what you 
> mean.
>
> There are many ways you can put this. URIs are names for things.

Yes.

> ( Sometimes those things are documents, sometimes not. )

There lies the problem.

Sometimes they are Names and sometimes they are Addresses.

URI abstraction caters for:

1. Generic Names
2. Location Name that are function specific otherwise known as Locators 
of Documents or Data Containers Addresses.

An Address is a Name too, but it has special meaning.

You can invert this whole thing around and say, well we only have URLs. 
The provide Addresses. But, there are times when we want these URLs to 
act as generic Names, so they no longer function as Addresses. User 
Agents don't expect a 200 OK.

200 OK means: this URI is a Locator.


> When they are not names for documents but for things then you need to 
> find the sense of the URI in order to be able to identify the thing. 
> (Otherwise how would you know which thing it was?) For the sense to be 
> found reliably there has to be a well defined way to get to the sense 
> of that URI. For http urls that is easy: you use the http protocol.
>
> I don't think we disagree here, and neither does the semantic web 
> disagree with Frege here. The innovation is that the (semantic) web 
> start from URIs that are engineered to make it easy for machines to 
> find the associated sense of the URI.

Semantic Web isn't doing anything novel. It is simply riding AWWW en 
route to: InterWeb scale Data Objects.

The problem is terminology conflation. Bugs in spec interpretation that 
became the norm in a dimension of the Web were the bugs didn't matter. 
The Web's data space dimension (what Linked Data delivers) is a 
different sub-system with some new rules or nuances.

Bugs:

1. Resource -- a broken term
2. URI -- totally misunderstood since most know of the URL subClass. 
They think URI is just a fancy term for URL etc..

Links:

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Aug/0000.html -- How 
the "R" in URI came to be and its implications.


"Check!"

>
>
> Henry
>
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>


-- 

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








Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:27:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:27:52 GMT