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

Re: new text for Information Resource (section 3.1)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 13:37:02 -0400
Message-Id: <200409091737.i89Hb2Ql028100@roke.hawke.org>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
cc: www-tag@w3.org


> I find myself generally comfortable with either 1 or 2 above. I would
> not be happy with 3.
> 
> I think this all boils down to how (or whether) the web and semantic
> web will have a seamless integration. The semantic web allows one to
> talk about anything, regardless of its accessability on the web. Yet
> I consider it the greatest win that the web and semantic web would have
> a shared set of identifiers in that anything described on the semantic
> web could also be provided representations on the web -- including
> coffee makers and dogs.
> 
> Definition 3 above takes the (IMO overly restrictive) "document centric"
> view that is not sufficiently generic to allow applying both the
> web and semantic web layers to their full potential given a shared
> set of resource identifiers.

That would be true, were it not for various forms of indirection, such
as SlashIndirection [1], the normal chopping of fragment IDs, and I
suppose your MGET approach.  Each of these techiniques allows
normal-looking URIs to be used to identify coffee makers and dogs,
while normal web retrieval mechanisms still get you data.  The
indirection in each case means the resource whose representation is
the data has a different URI than the coffee maker/dog.  (I guess with
MGET another URI isn't required; with redirection and
fragment-chopping it is.)

So the "document centric" view coexists quite smoothly with the
practice of assigning URIs to non-documents.

     -- sandro


[1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SlashRedirection
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 17:34:56 GMT

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