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

Re: "information resource"

From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 11:34:15 +0100
Message-ID: <414031A7.1020403@hp.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
CC: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, michael@neonym.net, www-tag@w3.org

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

<snip/>

> I feel that the difference is that you actually are using words in a 
> different ways and you actually have an architecture which is 
> different from mine.  It doesn't make the same assumptions,
>
> - The HTTP architecture creates a space of information resources 
> (documents by any other name) with URIs. (1)
> - An information is something which conveys information, and HTTP can 
> allow a digital representation of that information to be acquired from 
> the URI. (2)
> - The URI architecture allows local identifiers in a document to be 
> made global by prefixing with the URI if the document and "#" (3)
> - The Semantic Web architecture provides a language (RDF) for talking 
> about any  things and giving them local identifiers (4)
> - By (3) and  (4) the Semantic Web architecture provides a language 
> (RDF) for talking about any things and giving them URIs containing a 
> "#" (5)
>
> I think from what you have said in the past you have a different 
> architecture in mind, in which the URI can be considered to identify a 
> dog; the relationship "representation" can relate a dog to bits rather 
> than just a picture to bits.   I don't find this alternative 
> architecture so useful, because (for one thing) when I bookmark a 
> picture of a dog and reuse the bookmark, I expect in general the same 
> picture not just any document relating to the dog.
>
> Tim BL 

<snip/>

I think that we have to be *very* careful about the use of the term URI, 
particularly because of the TAG requested change in the use of 
terminology in RFC2396bis... i.e. the use of the term URI for URI 
references in absolute form (inclusive of optional fragment identifiers) 
. In (1) ,(2) and (3)  I think that you are implictly using URI 
constrained to *not* have fragment identifiers.

In the sentence that then follows:  "I think from what you have said in 
the past you have a different architecture in mind, in which the URI can 
be considered to identify a dog". I think you are implicitly speaking of 
URI without fragid (and more specifically HTTP URI without fragid). From 
earlier interactions in this thread eg:

  "<http://purl.org/stuff/pets#Basil> is a dog, and the same dog in fact,
  in as much as pets:hasDogName is an inverse functional property. "

you are ok with <http://purl.org/stuff/pets#Basil> being a dog (well 
naming/identifying/denoting a dog) - <http://purl.org/stuff/pets#Basil> 
is a URI reference in absolute form... and by 2396bis it is a URI, an 
http scheme URI.

BR

Stuart
--
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 10:36:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:28 GMT