- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:08:53 -0400
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- cc: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-tag@w3.org, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Tim Bray wrote:
> Michael Mealling wrote:
>
> > In my 'layered' view, the SW is a layer above the web, and as such a SW
> > 'resource' contains at its heart, a Web resource. You _could_ think of
> > it this way: it's the same object with multiple interfaces, the
> > Uri-Resource view found in 2396 being the equivalent of an IUnknown
> > interface (just without the ability to query for the other
> > interfaces)'. As you go up the layers you end up with more available
> > interfaces to pick from....
>
> I have a lot of sympathy with this world-view. Is there anyone who
> really doesn't like it?
Alas, I don't find it compelling at all. (And yes, I've been thinking
in terms of network layering, where appropriate, for ~20 years now.)
As I imagine the Semantic Web, we're likely to have two kinds of URIs:
those which identify servers (via ResponsePoints, mostly something
like an information-providing server or query-answering service, of
which a normal web server offering RDF/XML files is a simple instance)
and those which identify other things. The "other things" URIs will
often be strongly associated with the URI of an information-providing
server, so that you can easily find out more information about those
things. The forms of "strong association" I'm comfortable with
involve choping off the part of the URI after the hash mark, or
following an HTTP redirect (ie [1] [2]). I just don't see any kind of
interfaces or even serious protocols around that second class of URI,
and the first class is a refinement/extension of web protocols more
than a layering.
-- sandro
[1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HashURI
[2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SlashRedirection
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:09:36 UTC