W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2009

RE: URI for abstract concepts (domain, host, origin, site, etc.)

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:49:02 -0700
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, 'URI' <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E7234378339882D@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
But this approach means a parser cannot figure out the meaning of a URI without a GET. How would a parser know that a document about such a URI is really about something else (the subject of the URI) and not the resource the URI itself is identifying?

For this to work, I need to hardcode http://t-d-b.org into every parser to have a specialized meaning.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Booth [mailto:david@dbooth.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:08 AM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: 'Jonathan Rees'; ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Eran Hammer-Lahav;
> apps-discuss@ietf.org; www-tag@w3.org; 'URI'
> Subject: RE: URI for abstract concepts (domain, host, origin, site,
> etc.)
> 
> Larry,
> 
> On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 10:53 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
> > I'm thinking about revising
> >  http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html
> >
> > to:
> > (1) to get rid of "duri" and just stick with "tdb"
> >   (because there isn't much use for duri at all)
> > (2) make it a URI scheme rather than a URN namespace
> > (3) make the date optional, for cases where the time of
> >   binding resource to representation (and of interpretation
> >   of that representation to an 'abstract concept')
> >
> > So the simplest form would be
> >
> > tdb:http://larry.masinter.net
> 
> That makes it remarkably similar to
> http://t-d-b.org?http://larry.masinter.net
> 
> but the t-d-b.org URI has the advantage that it doesn't require a new
> URI scheme, and it *might* be dereferenceable by a browser.  In fact,
> at
> the moment it *is* dereferenceable.
> 
> >
> > which would neatly allow using descriptions of
> > abstract concepts to identify the abstract concept.
> 
> That sounds like what the "http://t-d-b.org?" prefix does.
> 
> > (Syntactically, the date can be left out without
> > ambiguity.)
> >
> > Would this be helpful, at least for illustrative purposes?
> 
> I think the goal is reasonable, but as explained in
> http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/
> I don't think a new URI scheme is necessary to achieve it.  Similar
> things can be done with http URIs, with greater benefit.
> 
> >
> > I think there are other means for distinguishing
> > between the representation of a  description and
> > the thing described, but this would at least
> > add a well-known method that isn't tied to
> > any particular protocol, linking method, resolution
> > method, etc.
> 
> Right, but "http:" URIs do not necessarily need to be resolved using
> HTTP, nor do they necessarily need to be resolved at all.  At worst
> they
> can be treated as opaque strings, but at best they *might* be
> dereferenceable to useful information.  A URI prefix like
> "http://t-d-b.org?" can become "well known" just as "tdb:" can.  This
> is
> a social issue, independent of whether a new scheme is defined.
> 
> 
> --
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
> 
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not
> necessarily
> reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 16:49:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:42 GMT