W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Content-Location is your friend

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 01:52:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200201180652.BAA23847@markbaker.ca>
To: patrick.stickler@nokia.com (Patrick Stickler)
Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com (URN), uri@w3.org (URI)
> The problem is that folks needing to talk about non-digital resources
> have been so 'http:' URL saturated that they started using them
> out of habit, or (fairly enough) not having much else to use, and
> then IMO folks started trying to re-define what URLs are for in
> order to justify this (mis)use.

Well I'm not going into that again, but at least we've boiled
down your argument. 8-)

> > and the relationship
> > between http://foo.com/freds_car/ and this other URI should be
> > authoritatively established with HTTP's Content-Location header.
> 
> A content header is not a digital-resource, it is part of the
> interchange protocol which describes to the recieving application
> what the content is -- how can you describe empty content?

It's an assertion, like any other on the Semantic Web, except in RFC 822
format rather than RDF.

Anyhow, my general attitude towards your drafts are that it's a good
idea to be able to know things about resources and the relationships
between them.  You appear to want to put at least some of this
information into the URI scheme (e.g. HRNs, where the existence of one
resource implies the existence of other resources), whereas I would
prefer that *all* of these relationships were made explicit with the
mechanisms provided by the Semantic Web, and that the identifiers
themselves remain entirely opaque.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 01:51:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:30 GMT