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

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

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 22:19:35 +0100
To: "Peter F Brown (Pensive SA)" <peter@pensive.eu>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, David Huynh <dfhuynh@alum.mit.edu>
CC: "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|d33b12c3b6481b2a77d231025a422c53l4JMJk02hg|ecs.soton.ac.uk|B383%hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Notwithstanding the robot problem, this data could be tracked in a standard way by the semantic web by a typical linked data version of the "whois" etc. data (against an appropriate ontology)?
In fact, hasn't Kingsley already sponged this? :-)

On 20/05/2009 22:02, "Peter F Brown (Pensive SA)" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote:

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 <http://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 21:20:55 GMT

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