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

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

From: Bill Kearney <wkearney99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 09:08:21 -0400
Message-ID: <068201c32063$38d6fad0$2000a8c0@wkearney.com>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> I think the "URI crisis" is a crisis of faith.

There is something to be said for the fragility of URI.

Having heard an XRI presentation yesterday, it may have some ideas worth
considering.  I haven't yet found where they're documenting this online so it's
not like I can point you to somewhere.

But the basic premise seems to be furthering the structure of existing URI via
use of BNF notation.  As in, allowing for portions of the URI to be established
as absolute or relative.  Along with some identifiers for entities like people,
organizations or 'things'.  It seems to lie somewhere in between URNs and URI
with a new twist.

> URIQA has faith in URIs. I have faith in URIs. While I'm not too sure about
> URI-Resolution-Mode (but I'm not unsure either so I don't feel qualified to
> enter into that debate right now) I like URIQA from a quick reading.
> I'm going to take some convincing before I see a new protocol (and a
> resultant divorce between the web and the semantic web) as bettering it.

Likewise so is trying to coerce URI into doing things at which they aren't well
suited.  But I'm with you, without clear examples that *real* developers in the
field can grasp, nothing's likely to gain traction.

-Bill Kearney
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 09:08:28 GMT

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