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

RE: Standard URI Set, ... -> keep it simple ?

From: Leo Sauermann <leo@ist.org>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 02:21:33 +0200
To: "'Sherman Monroe'" <shermanmonroe@yahoo.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000e01c31ff8$199dac60$e4446e50@ZION>
I am designing and implementing a framework right now that uses uris
with a "own" schema part.
but that is very experimental and I think I am dancing on thin ice with
- W3C won't be happy to introduce a new schema (I think, hey, what does
W3C think?)
- this will result in a new Port number and protocol and THAT is not
required. we got http, thats fine, SOAP is nice, too :-)
- every application from web browser to Java.io.URL will have problems
with rdp://
so this is my fear of change
but i have some practical experience here, too:
= go ahead, create the new protocol =
rdp:// sounds cool and it will be surely needed.
but what kind of protocol is it anyway ?
i am developing some kind of protocol right now but what protocol should
we use ?
- Sesame-style
- RDFSuite-style 
- RDFGateway-style
- ????
so I'd say do it W3C style:
propose a protocol and have it discussed.
= stick to HTTP as transfer protocol =
think of proxys and ports
think of "fear of change"
= use a new DOMAIN NAME =
just add a http://rdf.microsoft.com/billgates and everybody is happy ? 
This has been best practice since 1970 ? 
you know: pop.ms.com, news.ms.com, smtp.ms.com 
and you are really amazed when typing
http://pop3.server.com and see that some wise guy installed a web
interface for your email server.
like a web interface on your RDF server ?
= use TRICKY URLS that everybody can understand =
and thats my own experience from programming :  Example
I have a server with my rdf data:
I have some files there that belong to ME and i use
file <file://rdf.leolize.it/~leo/semweb/thesis.doc> ://rdf <file://rdf>
the server itself may have public files, too
file <file://rdf.leolize.it/~pub/music/iLikeKaraoke.mp3> ://rdf
<file://rdf/> .leolize.it/~pub/music/iLikeKaraoke.mp3
this is the uri of a person:
and HERE is my problem that I have to admit - solve the same way as you
i have an outlook appointment that belongs to user LEO
well, i really came far but not far enough to stick to my rules
mentioned above, perhaps i could just use http:// here....
.... what remains is fear of change ....
hope this injects inspiration
Leo Sauermann
Vienna, Austria

-----Original Message-----
From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sherman Monroe
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:44 PM
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: Standard URI Set, and Resource Description Protocol (rdp://)

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

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 <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html>  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

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
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com> Yahoo!
Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2003 20:21:30 UTC

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