W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

RE: Ideas for store for IFP smushing

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:21:40 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B02A2E9DA@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>, <leo@gnowsis.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext Phil Dawes
> Sent: 09 August, 2004 18:44
> To: Leo Sauermann
> Cc: Phil Dawes; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Ideas for store for IFP smushing
> True, and I agree that QAable URIs seem the most adequate solution to
> this problem. Unfortunately (from this standpoint) there is already a
> large number of resources that don't have URIs, and this number is
> likely to grow massively I think. I need a way to work with this data.
> Why grow massively? Because in a decentralized world it's easier to
> reference resources using IFPs rather than agreeing on URIs.

For what it's worth, this is also my position. It's much better
to have a dereferencable URI than a non-dereferencable URI (and
*much* better to have a URIQA queryable URI than a non-URIQA
queryable URI) but anonymous nodes with IFPs nevertheless is an
effective way to bootstrap/integrate alot of knowledge without the
cost of minting an official URI.

So, e.g. http://... is better than urn:... and http://... is better
than IFP, but IFP is better than nothing.

Though, folks should not be complacent about minting and publishing
URIs for resources that warrant them.

Note that the definition of a URIQA concise bounded resource description
has been refined to be bounded by IFPs, to avoid "FOAF bloat" where
simple anonymous node closure produces an overly large description.

(c.f. http://swdev.nokia.com/uriqa/URIQA.html#cbd  for the draft revision)


Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2004 06:22:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:52 UTC