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

RE: web proper names

From: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:53:15 +0100
To: "'Harry Halpin'" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009701c49f5c$3b964d10$0201a8c0@Lugh>

> Jon's take seems interesting, but on a second-cut I would, in 
> the style of XTM and WPNs, add a class of "referents" or 
> "subjects" to denote resources that are primarily used to 
> denote something without a web-accessible representation - 
> since after all, 
> representations on the web are resources too. So it isn't covered by 
> the case of "http://example.net/rep#NoRepresentation". Now, 
> some files 
> such as Expanded WPNS (WPNs over http://) are actually meant 
> to be used to refer to a "thing/referent" but have a representation.

I don't want to go too much into the specifics. The reason that you
don't get a 410 Gone there is that I still think my initial idea was
sound, however I don't at all like how it came out there. In particular
#NoRepresenation isn't something we can know about a resource.

I think that between the above and the WPN document you are hitting the
piece of the puzzle I missed though (I just think youre hitting a hell
of a lot more besides). A big problem is that I don't mention URIs! URIs
qua character string is an important part of how you get a particular
representation.

I don't think we need a referent/subject class. We already have that in
every other RDF class that isn't about the bunch of bytes that comes
down the wire.

> I think we should go ahead on all fronts, new RDF predicates and Web 
> Proper Names. I would like to see this problem solved.

Agreed.
Received on Monday, 20 September 2004 21:53:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:09 GMT