W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2009

RE: Owning URIs (Was: Yet Another LOD cloud browser)

From: Peter F Brown (Pensive SA) <peter@pensive.eu>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 23:02:38 +0200
Message-ID: <1B2253B0359130439EA571FF30251AAE1A3C17@SBS.pensive.lan>
To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "David Huynh" <dfhuynh@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>
Tim:

You ask a reasonable question:

"Why can't the semantic web track 'whois' information of domain
ownership"

but the answer must be:

because whois lookups are structured explicitly in a way to prevent
machine-readability because of the number of robots trying to harvest
information.

If the "semantic web" were able to read that data, it would mean other
less well intentioned people and service could too, and would lead to an
inflation of challenge sentry systems protection whois from prying
eyes...

 

Also could you qualify the statement: "there is in general a system of
ownership of URIs..." ? What is that system? Or are you claiming that it
is an implicit mix of DNS registration and site structure? A single
domain name can host n "content domain owners" as much as multiple
domain names can all refer to a single owner.

 

Thanks!

 

Regards,

Peter

 

From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Tim Berners-Lee
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:32 AM
To: David Huynh
Cc: Sherman Monroe; Linked Data community; semantic-web@w3.org
Subject: Owning URIs (Was: Yet Another LOD cloud browser)

 

David,

 

On 2009-05 -18, at 07:20, David Huynh wrote:





Sherman Monroe wrote:

	[...] For example, when I search for Microsoft on Google, the
first result not only IS what I want, but also LOOKs like what I want. I
can make the decision to click on it within maybe 1 or 2 seconds. The
URL "www.microsoft.com" in that search result is perhaps the most
convincing element, as I know only *the* Microsoft can possibly own that
domain. (This will be a challenge for any SW search engine, because
no-one can own any URI, and so, seeing a URI alone means pretty much
nothing. That's one of the main differences between URL and URI, which
is usually swept under the rug.) 

 

I had to pick up in "no-one can own any URI".

 

First of all, terms:  URL is not really a term in the architecture of
the WWW.  I find it best to use "URI".  "URL" does occur in the browser
UI, but in the specs it has been used for various things, often a
derogatory term for a URI which might change. How are you using it here?
To mean the URI of a web page?

To mean an " http:"  URI?  If not, then why are you dealing with URIs
which are not HTTP URIs (tch, tch! :-)?  If so, then why don't you think
these HTTP URIs in the semantic web are owned? 

 

Why can't the semantic web track 'whois' information of domain
ownership, and maybe even SLL certificate information, of sites and be
aware of the social relationships, and use them intelligently? (perhaps
more safely than a human who will be confused by
http://www.microsoft.com.1000ripyouoff.crime/ ?) .  It is true that the
delegation of information within a site is not typically made explicit
(though it could be with site metadata).  But there is in general a
system of ownership of URIs, it seems to me, and it is important on the
SW in the social processes by which different groups get to define what
different terms mean.  So "no-one can own any URI" set off a red flag
for me.

 

Tim

 
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 21:03:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:29 GMT