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

Re: Announcement: The "info" URI Scheme

From: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 00:53:29 -0400
To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <r02000100-1026-DDA19EE7F6EF11D7B310000393758032@[10.0.1.2]>

Garret Wilson writes:

> Fine---there needs to be a standard solution for finding out "where
> authoritative descriptive metadata resides." We can all agree that
> this is a problem. So?

For resources retrieved via HTTP, my preference would be for a header
like See-Also or Description, which contains a URI reference indicating
a resource providing a machine-readable description of the requested
resource.

> "Everything HTTP" is one answer that has the side-effect of confusing 
> the resource with its metadata. There are surely thousands of other 
> answers. Here are a few off the top of my head. (I'm not proposing 
> them---I'm just pointing out that there are thousands of other answers 
> that don't have the same semantic deficiencies.)

While it's possible to interpret HTTP URIs in inconsistent ways, there's
no requirement that you have to. As an example, let's say
<http://example.com/joe> denotes Joe Example. When you dereference you
might get a picture or a web page or some RDF, depending on how the
request is phrased. In all cases, the actual response would include a
Content-Location header telling you that the picture, say, can be found
at <http://example.org/joe.jpg>. Thus, there is no confusion between Joe
and his picture, bio, and FOAF file.
-- 
David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com> | "In this house, we obey the laws
<http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem>      |        of thermodynamics!"
Received on Sunday, 5 October 2003 00:53:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:02 GMT