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

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 “concept” within the set’s 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 URI’s 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 “vocabulary” to unambiguously describe concepts and resources



This global set is a mosaic of URI’s 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 URI’s. 

If you want to locate a document that contains RDF describing a semantic resource, that’s 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.

-sherman



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.