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

Re: Announcement: The "info" URI Scheme

From: Peter C Davis <peter.davis@neustar.biz>
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:02:22 -0400
Message-ID: <3F8094EE.6040308@neustar.biz>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, uri@w3.org

Patrick Stickler wrote:

>On 2003-10-03 09:55, "ext Peter C Davis" <peter.davis@neustar.biz> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Garret Wilson wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>But when all one has is a single URI, how do you find out *where*
>>>>authoritative descriptive metadata resides, if that URI is not
>>>>meaningful to HTTP? That's the problem. If all you have is
>>>>uri:foo:blargh how do you know where to go for information about
>>>>the thing denoted by that URI, and how do you know that the information
>>>>you find is authoritative? And even if you manage to work out a
>>>>solution, will that solution scale globally?
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>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?
>>>      
>>>
>>Actually, there is a proposal:
>>http://www.projectliberty.org/specs/draft-lib-arch-metadata-v1.0-08.pdf
>>which uses the DNS and DDDS (http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3401.txt), which
>>solves this in part.
>>    
>>
>
>It solves it in theory. But until/unless DDDS is as ubiquitous as
>HTTP, it does not count as a solution.
>
agreed.

>>In particular URIs whose naming authority part is
>>domain-based and a special case for the URN scheme.
>>    
>>
>And as I've pointed out, there is no need for DNS+DDDS. One can
>accomplish all of the goals set forth for URNs using HTTP.
>
>C.f. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Jul/0005.html
>  
>
Again, i agree.

>>While the approached
>>defined was intended to solve more specific issues, it can be made more
>>generalized. It is scheme and protocol independant.  Whether you choose
>>to use HTTP, SMTP, FTP or whatever.
>>    
>>
>
>Fine. So it is more talented than HTTP alone (maybe) but are those
>extra features really needed so much that it warrants the deployment
>of a parallel global resolution infrastructure?
>  
>
Yes, because one day HTTP gets replaced with FOOP, and you would not 
want the metadata to instantly disappear as a result.  Rather just fold 
the (more flexible) and deployed DDDS from HTTP clients to FOOP 
clients.  DDDS is not realy a  _new_  parallel resolution architecture, 
it is simply a reuse of an otherwise under-used resource record in the 
existing DNS.

Also, if i have an existing URI for a person (eg mailto:me@here.foo), 
that i can remember, DDDS allows metadata for that usecase, but HTTP 
could not, without well-know rules.

>>It also allows for multiple
>>representations of metadata, so you describe the URI in multiple
>>formats.  It would, IMO, be an error to assume that for a given
>>resource, you may only gt *one* metadata document.
>>    
>>
>
>If you mean allowing content negotiation in order to get those
>authoritative descriptions is different encodings (RDF, N3, XTM,
>etc.) sure. No problem with HTTP + URIQA.
>  
>
No, i was really meaning using different vocabularies. 

--- peterd
Received on Sunday, 5 October 2003 18:04:31 GMT

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