W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2001

Re: What is the URI of Truth?

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:24:18 +0100
Message-ID: <032501c0f02f$3d0f0ea0$d7dd93c3@z5n9x1>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> An address or a location is a point of access. I would argue
> that the result of "dereferencing" a phone number is a phone
> call. I.e., perhaps your browser dials your modem?

Not according to any definition of "deferencing" that I know about,
which is to retrieve a data representation of a resource. Perhaps
"accessing" is a better word.

At any rate, this is a minor point.

[...]
> I see that tel: URL as being very similar in nature to
> a mailto: or http: URL. They are all points of access,
> even though the nature of the content or the protocols
> governing access or the mode of access might differ
> somewhat.

Of course.

[...]
> > > A namespace should be identified *only* with
> > > a URN.
[...]
> "An example of a syntax that is designed with these goals in
> mind is that for Uniform Resource Names [RFC2141]. However,
> it should be noted that ordinary URLs can be managed in such
> a way as to achieve these same goals."

Did you even read this citation? It says that URNs were designed with
the same goals in mind, but that URLs may be suitable as well. It does
*not* say only to use URNs! Is there some weird confusion about this?
There is no specification in the world that I am aware of that stops
you from using URLs as namespace names. There are hundreds of XML
related technologies that use URLs as their namespace names. They all
work just fine. That is the only acknowldgement I want at this stage -
that URLs as namespaces *work*, even if they aren't ideal for all
applications.

The world isn't going to listen unless you are both reasonable and
realistic in your statements. Trying to get a world of highly
conservative (small "c") technologists to take up some weird new
suggestion when their current methods work just fine isn't going to
fly unless you understand that you're fighting against the tides, as
it were.

Yes, URNs or some other kind of URI scheme for generic identification
of arbitrary concepts is a good idea, and it is easy to deploy and so
forth. But if you start inferring plainly rediculous things such as
"URLs as namespaces should be banned", then people are just not going
to listen. You want to give them the choice - forcing people to do
anything that they don't *need* to do, especially without due reason,
is just going to alienate them, and run contrary to your cause.

You have some good ideas, but I think you need to sit down and think
carefully about how you're going to publicize them.

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Friday, 8 June 2001 11:24:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:49 GMT