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

RE: web proper names

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:57:12 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50ADCCD@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <david.harvey@bristol.ac.uk>, <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 Hamish Harvey
> Sent: 21 September, 2004 16:24
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: RE: web proper names
> 
> 
> 
> This debate has caused a decided shift in my understanding of this
> issue. There follows a summary. Comments and flames the very 
> purpose of
> posting. Am I missing the point? Making some rudimentary mistake?
> 
> Cheers,
> Hamish
> 
> 

[SNIP -- lots of stuff that I agree with and enjoyed reading]

> URIQA seems in this context to be a mechanism by which the (URI qua
> retrieval path) can be used to retrieve information about the thing
> indicated by the (URI qua symbol). The URIQA web service clarifies the
> two facets of the URI in play by separating the retrieval path and the
> (URI qua symbol) being asked about.

Yep.

And it is the capturing of this important separation/distinction which 
motivates the distinct methods MGET, MPUT, and MDELETE employed along
with their counterparts GET, PUT, and DELETE.

Granted, there are other technical means to accomplish this, but IMO none
that measure up in terms of cleanness of design, from an engineering
perspective, as the distinct methods defined by the URIQA model.

Regards,

Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 08:57:54 GMT

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