W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > July 2003

RE: Proposal: new top level domain '.urn' alleviates all need for urn: URIs

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:32:27 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBBF9@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <leo@gnowsis.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Leo Sauermann [mailto:leo@gnowsis.com]
> Sent: 08 July, 2003 15:46
> To: Rdf-Interest
> Subject: RE: Proposal: new top level domain '.urn' alleviates all need
> for urn: URIs 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a new top level domain is not needed, 

I agree. It is not essential to making the proposal work.

> because HUMANS that use
> systems I build will have to remember the domain names and I think
> teaching a child "this is yahoo.com" makes enough stating 
> where to find
> the information about the concept "yahoo.com" (see plato / 
> Parmenides of
> Elea).
> this is the first time in humankind that a NAME is the 
> MEANING of it and
> this is fine.

I have no idea what you mean here.

How is

   urn:issn:1560-1560

superior in any way as a name to

   http://issn.urn/1560-1560

???

I can argue that the latter is superior to the first
because it is meaningful to the HTTP protocol, providing
a proven and globally deployed means of obtaining 
representations, and with URIQA a future globally
deployed means of obtaining descriptions.

> having two different things kills the human readable factor. and it is
> no good design, programmers SENSE tells you to avoid redundancy.
> 
> USE OWL !!!
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-guide-20030331/#sameIndividualAs
> and you are done with changes.

Err.... I think you are arguing against a misunderstanding
of something I didn't say (and I'm not even sure what it is
you think I've said...)

What two different things are you talking about?!

And yes, let's use OWL, by all means.

I would even love to see RDF/OWL used to express the relations
between URIs used by the redirection from HTTP-URN to some
other URI, so that if one does

GET http://issn.urn/1560-1560 HTTP/1.1
URI-Resolution-Mode: Description

statements such as

   <http://issn.urn/1560-1560> owl:sameAs <...> .

would be included in the description.

That's what RDF/OWL are for, and what URIQA is intended to provide.

Having HTTP-URNs as I propose, rather than urn: URNs, allows
those who need minimally mnemmonic URIs to have them without
any change to the way in which agents, either Web or Semantic
Web, interact with representations or descriptions of the
resources denoted.

The motivations for creating the special URI scheme urn: as
a separate solution from http: URIs simply lose all weight
in light of what I am proposing and what has been proposed
previously in the work done on PURLs.

This proposal brings URNs fully within the scope of both the
Web and the Semantic Web (a'la URIQA) rather than leaving them
outside that machinery.

> THINK OF ROLLOUT PROBLEM
> people have webservers and can easily create a few more scripts for
> throwing out RDF. just a new path. thats how I would do it and how it
> will probably work, together with embedding RDF in HTML. 
> Uriqa is fine,
> also f.e. Joseki. Install Joseki !

I'm sorry, you've lost me again. Exactly which
topic are you trying to address?

> I am opposed to major changes if you can make it runnung with existing
> things 

Argh! This is precisely one of the key motivations for the
proposal in question! To meet all of the needs of those who
want urn: URIs but with the existing HTTP machinery!

Have you even read my original post, or are you just misinterpreting
random comments far along the thread of discussion?

> and well, we have the task to try it out with existing 
> technology
> and see what happens.
> 
> btw: humans hate change.
>
> I can't tell a solution to the problem of domains but I am building
> something that is based on the idea "only use URIs that are ALWAYS a
> URL" and this approach is fine for me.


Which should make you a strong supporter of my proposal
for HTTP-URNs, no? As that is precisely what it promotes.

Patrick



> greetings
> Leo Sauermann
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 1:52 PM
> > To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
> > Cc: dehora@eircom.net; uri@w3.org; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Proposal: new top level domain '.urn' alleviates 
> > all need for urn: URIs 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > *nothing* needs to
> > > change to put my proposal into use.
> > 
> > The problem I see is how you make a domain name, even issn.iana.org,
> > stable.  It seems totally possible that 5 years from now iana will
> > change its name, and politcal winds will make it really, really want
> > to change issn.iana.org to issn.joePoliticanMemorialIANA.org.   
> > 
> > Or someone could forget to pay the bills.  I've lost a domain that
> > way.  I pushed pretty hard and was assured that even 
> verisign couldn't
> > get its own domain back (unless trademark law applied) if 
> it forgot to
> > pay the bill on time.  And it's not only individuals who 
> forget to pay
> > bills (I'm thinking of microsoft forgetting to pay for hotmail.com).
> > 
> > Presumably, if enough was built on the exact name, there would be
> > enough of a back presure that the domain could not be taken 
> away, but
> > ... it's a concern.   
> > 
> >     -- sandro
> > 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 04:32:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:00 GMT