W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2007

Re: What if an URI also is a URL

From: Golda Velez <w3@webglimpse.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 00:24:10 -0700
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <200706100024.10984.w3@webglimpse.org>

On Saturday 09 June 2007 20:08, Jon Hanna wrote:
> Since this matter was unsettled, and since I didn't get (and still don't 
> get which is the enlightenment I'm hoping to acheive here) why a URI 
> identifying myself couldn't return a representation

For what its worth - I think returning a representation would be ok, but for a 
URI identifying a non-document the representation is not what the URI is 
referring to, which is what makes it weird.

I think we need some way to specify a domain, protocol or some special pattern 
or type of URI that is for identifying abstract concepts, concrete objects 
(ie people), and other non-documents.  It would be nice if we could get the  
info:// folks to make that protocol available & extensible for the purpose, 
but if that's unlikely a convention like
	http://mydomain.com/w2.0/people/JoeBrown
	http://somedomain.com/w2.0/mysubjects/Cards/Poker/DeucesWild

could serve, or many others.  This convention, that is the /w2.0/ following 
the domain, would simply mean "This URI is attempting to represent a semantic 
point, it may or may not return a representation".  

Maybe I'm totally off the mark here, but I think some way shape or form it 
would be good to separate the ability to pinpoint a concept from the 
requirement to represent it.  

--Golda

On Saturday 09 June 2007 20:08, Jon Hanna wrote:
> 
> M. David Peterson wrote:
> >> No. It cannot identify both a document and a person.
> > 
> > Why?  Are you suggesting that what I have done -- i.e. used a domain I 
> > presently maintain control over to provide information embedded into the 
> > same document intended to serve different purposes, and do so quite 
> > legitamatelly and successfully -- is in fact, wrong?  If yes, how so?  
> > It works and works well.  Nothing has been broken as a result, and the 
> > same URI had identified both a document and a person.
> 
> It makes sense to say that a URI cannot identify both a person and a 
> document or else it's failing to identify anything (or is at best a 
> partial identifier and we need a mechanism for defining its scope).
> 
> What I still don't get is why anything has to identify the document(s). 
> If you really care to talk about the document(s) themselves you could 
> *then* have a URI for them and another for yourself. If I'm 
> dereferencing a URI that I have been informed identifies you I'm doing 
> so because I have an interest in you and wish to obtain information 
> about you - which receiving said documents does. I'm not going to be 
> interested in the web page in and of itself, only in you.
> 
> Now, some time ago (when this question seemed still unsettled) I defined 
> <http://www.hackcraft.net/jon/> as identifying myself.
> 
> Since this matter was unsettled, and since I didn't get (and still don't 
> get which is the enlightenment I'm hoping to acheive here) why a URI 
> identifying myself couldn't return a representation I have the following:
> 
> URI                Resource            Representation
> http://.../jon/    Me                  text/html
>                                         OR
>                                         application/xhtml+xml
>                                         OR
>                                         application/rdf+xml
> 
> Now, at some point I'll come to update that website (maybe, I'm very lax 
> about it) and in light of the above being incorrect I'll have:
> 
> URI                Resource            Representation
> http://.../jon/    Me                  303 ->
> 
> http://.../jon/doc Implementation      text/html
>                     artefact I don't    OR
>                     care about          application/xhtml+xml
>                                         OR
>                                         application/rdf+xml
> 
> If I should care to say something about a resource that exists to hold a 
> description of me then I would want it to have its own URI. I don't 
> though, it exists purely to describe me. And I can't see why it need 
> exist at all.
> 
> 

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Golda Velez	520-440-1420		http://goldavelez.com
what I do: 	Tucson Superblog	http://btucson.com
		Search software		http://webglimpse.net
		Web hosting		http://iwhome.com

"Help organize the world - index your own corner of the web!"
Received on Sunday, 10 June 2007 07:10:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:57 UTC