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
this,
because:
 
- 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.
wait.
(repeat)
 
= stick to HTTP as transfer protocol =
serious. 
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:
http://rdf.leolize.it
 
I have some files there that belong to ME and i use
file <file://rdf.leolize.it/~leo/semweb/thesis.doc> ://rdf <file://rdf>
.leolize.it/~leo/semweb/thesis.doc
 
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:
http://rdf.leolize.it/~leo
 
and HERE is my problem that I have to admit - solve the same way as you
do:
 
i have an outlook appointment that belongs to user LEO
 
rdf://leo@rdf.leolize.it/outlook/appointment/12301928301823098123
 
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
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 <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
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
<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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:59 GMT