RE: URIS for Literals (was: Re: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information resource"))

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com 
> [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 01 November, 2004 21:40
> To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
> Cc: chris@w3.org; GK@ninebynine.org; joshuaa@microsoft.com; 
> skw@hp.com;
> timbl@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: URIS for Literals (was: Re: referendum on 
> httpRange-14 (was
> RE: "information resource"))
> 
> 
> Regarding a proposed URI such as:
> 
>         http://www.w3.org/2004/SchemaSimpleTypes/Integer/12
> 
> Patrick Stickler writes:
> 
> > Why would they be preferable to any other form of
> > URI? Despite the fact that humans might recognize
> > that they seem to pertain to literal values, the
> > principle of URI opacity would preclude any agent
> > (or human) from concluding that they actually do
> > identify literal values, 
> 
> I think you miss the point.  The idea is that there is >some< 
> URI for the 
> member of the type xsd:Integer corresponding to the number 
> 12.  That's 
> clearly, IMO, a different resource than the string of 
> characters "1","2". 
> I believe Chris agrees that his proposed URI is most 
> appropriate to the 
> latter.
> 
> The http URI shown is just an example of one way of naming 
> the resource.

OK, I understood Chris as saying that the above URI was
somehow preferable to the data: URI example. 

> > since the http: URI scheme says nothing 
> > about such interpretations.
> 
> I disagree. The http URI scheme spec very clearly says, as 
> far as I know, 
> that the URI quoted above is under the control of the w3c, 
> insofar as w3c 
> is the domain name holder for www.w3.org.   

That's not at all what I meant. The http: URI scheme itself
says nothing whatsoever about datatypes or datatype values.

> So, if the w3c 
> says that the 
> URI above stands for the member of the xsd:Integer type in 
> question, then 
> it does.  The conclusion is not licensed by micro-parsing the 
> URI unless 
> the W3C tells you to.  

I'm not sure I'm fully comfortable with "micro URI schemes" within 
the http URI scheme that has special structure. As with the data:
URI approach, for the purpose of identifying literal values, it
feels a bit too much like a quick and dirty hack. As with the
data: URI approach, yes, it probably would work. But I think it
would be a fragile solution.

> It's licensed by the URI telling you 
> that this is 
> their intended use of the URI.

Well, it's one thing to talk about a "micro parsing scheme" (which
I didn't recognize in the earlier posts), but it's quite something
else to suggest that any arbitrary agent is goint to know for any
arbitrary http: URI that such a "micro parsing scheme" is appropriate.

In this regard, using a data: URI, a http: URI, or a uuid: URI
makes no difference -- nothing about the lexical structure of
those URIs can be presumed to have anything to do with datatypes
or datatype values insofar as the lexical structure of the URI
is concerned alone.

Sure, if the creator/owner of the URI tells you that it identifies
a datatype value, great. Then it does. But the URI itself cannot
tell you that.

The idea of having (preferably recognizable) "micro parsing schemes"
within http: URIs is interesting and something I have to think about
a bit.

Patrick

Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2004 04:53:02 UTC