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

RE: Bitzi File Metadata RDF Dump

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:37:01 +0300
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B78877321144043114BFE6@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: danbri@w3.org
Cc: aswartz@upclink.com, gojomo@bitzi.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> Sent: 26 September, 2001 19:04
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: aswartz@upclink.com; gojomo@bitzi.com; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Bitzi File Metadata RDF Dump
> 
> 
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> > > You seem to have created a new URI scheme for bitprints:
> > >
> > > bitprint:3KIZIJB64XP3NCXAE4ISQZT3QNCTF7VDNK5UNR8ZPQ5MFASNGVB5M
> > > ISV7ESUSB2MN5R3IY2
> > >
> > > AFAIK, this URI scheme is unregistered. Why go to all this
> > > trouble when these bitprints already have URIs? I think it'd be
> > > much better to just use:
> > >
> > > http://bitzi.com/lookup/3KIZIJB64XP3NCXAE4ISQZT3QNCTF7VDNK5UNR
> > 8ZPQ5MFASNGVB5MISV7ESUSB2MN5R3IY2
> >
> > I have to respectfully disagree with your recommendation 
> here, Aaron.
> 
> And I'll merrily disagree with the pair of you. The cheapest 
> way to deal
> with this is as a textual property of the resource. Bitzi (or maybe
> MusicBrainz?) just need to define an RDF property, eg. 
> 'bitprint' whose
> values are strings calculated using the specified algorithm.

Well, you may be right that there is a better way than *any* URI
to encode that data, but that wasn't particularly the focus of my
comments (which presumed that use of *some* URI was the preferred 
method).
 
> > Names are names. Locations are locations. The URN/URL distinction
> > is valid. Let's not encourage folks to blur it any further, eh?
> >
> > I encourage Bitzi to register and use their bitprint: URN (URI)
> > scheme and not resort to further misuse (IMMHO) of the HTTP URI
> > scheme for abstract resource names.
> 
> The URN/URL distinction isn't as clear cut as you suggest.
> 
> HTTP names can perfectly well be used to name 'abstract' resources,
> distinct from their various bit-stream representations and 
> associations
> with particular Internet-connected Web services.

Well, whether they *can* be used as such is a different question as
to whether they *should* be used as such ;-) And of course, just
because a given HTTP URL might resolve to different representations,
doesn't mean it represents an "abstract" resource, per se, but
rather a concrete meta-resource ;-) corresponding to multiple variant
instantiations.

While URLs and URNs no longer are considered to represent disjunct
partitions of URI space, they still (to my understanding) are considered
to be valid and necessary concepts distinguishing between resources
which are expected to have some "physical" online realization and
those which are trully abstract.

For those who haven't seen it yet, cf 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-uri-clarification-20010921/.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
Patrick Stickler                      Phone:  +358 3 356 0209
Senior Research Scientist             Mobile: +358 50 483 9453
Software Technology Laboratory        Fax:    +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center                 Video:  +358 3 356 0209 / 4227
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland   Email:  patrick.stickler@nokia.com
 
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 12:38:03 GMT

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