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

RE: What is the URI of Truth?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:43:55 +0300
Message-ID: <6D1A8E7871B9D211B3B00008C7490AA507958767@treis03nok>
To: sean@mysterylights.com, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

> [...]
> > > > 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?

And I stated that, no, the spec does not say URNs and only URNs (re-read
my posting).

I *do* read "designed with these goals in mind" as equating to 
more suitable than "can be managed [made to work]" but *if* you
know how to manage them to be made to work that way, etc.

> 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.

I agree. 

Far more critical than the name versus location, URL as URN issue is
the reliable derivation of URIs from QNames, and that is what I see
as threatening the inoperability of the SW.

> 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.

Point taken. I'm an incurable idealist at heart ;-)

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

Please see my proposal to a formula of QName to URI mapping that
should work regardless of the URI scheme of the namespace name, or
at least might be a step in the right direction to a formula that
would work.

Received on Friday, 8 June 2001 11:44:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:36 UTC