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

RE: Bitzi File Metadata RDF Dump

From: Peter Crowther <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:47:31 +0100
Message-ID: <B6F03FDBA149CA41B6E9EB8A329EB12D05A7B3@vault.melandra.net>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com]
[Many good points snipped]
> Using HTTP URLs as URNs where they identify abstract resources is
> IMO a total abuse of the HTTP URI scheme and in violation of the
> explicitly defined purpose of HTTP URLs.

And that, I think, is the key point.  I feel that it is a mistake to
confound URIs (especially URLs) and concepts, and that the Topic Map
separation of Topics and Occurrences might work better.  Or it might not.
TMs are designed to be self-contained; RDF is designed to sprawl.  You need
some globally-visible namespace if the sprawl is to be interpreted.

> You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can have one of 
> the following three options:
> 
> 1. secure, unique, abstract, generic identifiers provided by some 
> centralized agency (URNs from agencies managing registered 
> URN namespaces, or "pseudo" URNs such as PURLs) 
> 
> 2. secure, unique, authority specific, abstract identifiers grounded
> in the authority identity (e.g. 'vnd' URNs as proposed above, managed
> by the owner of the authority identity)
> 
> 3. secure, authority specific, concrete locations grounded in the 
> authority address scope (e.g. URLs, managed by the owner of the
> authority scope). 

4. Don't use URIs for concepts.

Why can't we use GUIDs as concept IDs?

		- Peter
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 13:48:03 GMT

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