W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Solutions to the Identification Problem, was Re: URIs / URLs

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:04:37 +0100
Message-ID: <02b901c0c383$72e02c40$02d993c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "RDF Logic" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
> > I don't see the problem.
>
> The problem is that URI schemes are named in a
> centralized manner,

Yes, the process for acceptance and IETF registration is rather
tortuous. Then again, on the other hand, there aren't many resources
that cannot be identified with any of the currect URI schemes, so in
practise if someone had the time to register a good new scheme, it
would probably be worth it.

The fact that it is so difficult to get accepance for a new URI scheme
is good because they should not be created on whim: they should only
be made if there is some recognized need for them. Still, this should
not discourage creators of good schemes from registering them, IMHO.

> I'm contemplating this process for one such scheme and I
> am not encouraged.

TANN? I was going to register the "address:" URI scheme [1], but on
contemplation I didn't have the time or patience, so I know what you
mean.

> If the theory really is irrelevant to real systems, then it's not
the
> relevant theory!

:-)

> There seem to be different levels of theoretical
> rigor needed for different kinds of work.

Agreed.

> [...] my three options seem to match the ways humans
> approach this problem, so I'm not optimistic that there
> is something better.

Oops; I wasn't implying that there is anything currently better, only
that there could have been if the situation had have been more
carefully planned in the past.

> > Erm... how many processors do you know of that derference
> > the RDF namespace to gain an insight into how RDF works?
>
> None, but I believe some people want that as on option for at
> least validation-like functionality.

That's quite interesting. Of course, this leads to format problems:
what if I want to validate using N3? Personally, I think that schemas
for primitives are only for demonstration: anything useful hard-codes
these primitives to make it work. Would it really make much difference
if the RDF namespace was written in XHTML? I doubt it, especially as
the namespaces it currently uses are out of date...

[1] http://infomesh.net/2001/03/address/

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 15:04:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT