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

RE: Re: Information resources?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 08:42:21 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50A1CE4@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <sandro@w3.org>, <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Sandro Hawke
> Sent: 10 September, 2004 17:04
> To: Norman Walsh
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Information resources? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > But people are going to assign bare, naked http: URIs to physical
> > objects, dreams, and states of being. A robust system better be able
> > to deal.
> 
> Isn't that kind of throwing in the towel?  

Yes, and that towel should have been thrown in a long time ago...

> > So http://xmlns.com/wordnet/2.0/Hoary_Marmot redirects to...what?
> 
> Perhaps to http://xmlns.com/wordnet/2.0/Hoary_Marmot/about
> which is content-negotated to 
>            http://xmlns.com/wordnet/2.0/Hoary_Marmot/about.rdf
> to get the current data.
> 
> Or index.rdf like Patrick suggests.

Well, the choice of 'index' is influenced by legacy practice. 'about' would
be more meaningful for humans -- not that the distinction has any significance
to the machinery, given the opacity of URIs.

And in addition to such a methodology as proposed earlier, folks would be
much better off using URIQA to allow folks to simply ask explicitly for
the formal, machine-processable description of the resource in question,
and bypass the semantically fuzzy representations altogether  ;-)

> > Nothing is perfect.
> 
> Except my love for this thread.   <sigh>   :-)

;-) ;-) ;-)

Patrick
Received on Saturday, 11 September 2004 05:42:42 GMT

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