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

Standard URI Set, and Resource Description Protocol (rdp://)

From: Sherman Monroe <shermanmonroe@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20030521174357.93933.qmail@web14705.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Hi. I want to bring to your attention an effort that I would like to launch. 

Global URI Set

I am in the process of developing a global, standard URI set. The set will contain exactly one URI for each ďconceptĒ within the setís domain. In other words, a concept will be represented by exactly one URI. The idea is to solve the problem of interoperability. When RDF publishers wish to describe a resource, they use URI's which they have looked up the in the global URI set. This would/could develop into a defacto consensus. This does two things: 

1)       Gives publishers URIís that are in wide use, and thus, are semantically robust and well-defined

2)       Allows publishers to interoperate with each other, since we are all using the same URI ďvocabularyĒ to unambiguously describe concepts and resources

This global set is a mosaic of URIís from many, many RDF ontologies in wide use. Ontology creators will be able to add URIs/ontologies via an informal process. 

Resource Description Protocol (rdp://)

I read TBL's paper about the URI crisis, and I agree with most of what he says. I feel that the URI should be completely opaque, and that no promises should be made as to what a URI will return if a browser is pointed to it. Browsers are for locating resources in the www space. We need a protocol that the semantic web machines can use to denote resources in the semantic space. Therefore, the URIs in our global set will begin with rdp://. This settles the issue as to what a browser will return for RDF URIís. 

If you want to locate a document that contains RDF describing a semantic resource, thatís another issue completely - that document will be located in the www space (or some other document storage space). But if you want to located a semantic resource (rdf://Microsoft.com), then you will need to had over the URI to a semantic agent equipped with the appropriate RDF knowledgebase, and the RDF model describing the resource will be returned to you.

Having our own protocol is desiralbe for several reasons:

1) If someone/somegroup creates an ontology, then decides to discontinue maintining it, the ontology's URIs can still remain and flourish in the semantic space. There is not such thing as a "broken link" once the URI has been absorbed into the global set (informally via consensus)

2) It solves the issue of what should a URI return in a browser. This will once and for all place semantic resources in a space separate from the www. In this way, the semantic URI is viewed only as an atomic symbol that simply and unambigously "stands for" some concept or resource.

I would appreciate any input on these matters, including any current efforts focuses at these or similar issues. Also, anyone wanting to get involved please email me privately.


Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2003 13:45:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:45 UTC