W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2005

Re: Not needed? Distributed URI Discovery

From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:21:03 +0100
To: Max Voelkel <max@xam.de>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <PM-EH.20050324092103.3323A.1.1D@192.168.27.2>

On 23.03.2005 21:32:22, Max Voelkel wrote:
>
>>>At present, there is no formal, generalized mechanism whereby a Web Agent,
>>>upon discovery of a URI, and lacking knowledge about that URI, can query the
>>>Originator of the URI in order to obtain an RDF description of the URI.
>
>Lets compare URIs with symbols. When I discover a new term, I can not
>ask the term, what it means. I ask a knowledge source (friends, books,
>search engine) about it.
>Why do we have to make things different on the web? When I find
>a RDF document with URIs I don't know i just ignore them.
When you come across an unknown non-web term, you ask a
knowledge source. If you don't want to make things different on
the web, you'll try to find a knowledge source for an unknown web
term or resource URI as well, won't you?

> If the RDF
>document was well-written it should contain rdf:seeAlso links to URLs
>of RDF-documents describingthe terms. Mights this be a solution?
Yeah, but we don't have an RDF document. All we start with is a
URI. The problem we discussed here was how to find this document
containing the description of the resource denoted by the URI (in
an efficient way), or how/where to serve this document in case
you are the URI owner/publisher...

Of course you can say that URIs are just labels and that noone
should try to find out more about resources identified by URIs,
but http-URIs have 95% of what is needed for automatic resource
description discovery already built in, it seems to be worth
the effort to find a solution for the remaining 5% in order to
help the semantic web grow faster. (damn tricky 5%, ok ;)

best,
benjamin

--
Benjamin Nowack

Kruppstr. 100
45145 Essen, Germany
http://www.bnode.org/

>It is inspired by the WWW approach of links and by the design
>criterion of separation between identity (URI) and location (URL). I
>think also "_:1 rdf:type foo:isCrawlable" or similiar would be
>helpful.
>
>My conclusion is thus we need no index.rdf, no URI originator, no MGET etc.
>__ Location is not identity. __
>
>
>Ok, what if somebody else adds statements about a URI? Well, then i
>either need something like
>a) a search engine = centralized infrastructure or
>b) something like traceback = distributed, networked infrastructure
>   -> we need a standard for RDF-traceback-servers!
>
>I hope I inspired some people,
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Max
>--
>University of Karlsruhe, AIFB, Knowledge Management Group
>room #258, building 11.40                      www.xam.de
>
>
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 08:24:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:45 UTC