W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2006

RE: CURIEs: A proposal

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:12:23 -0400
To: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF77DF484D.F6FA4535-ON85257196.006EE58B-85257196.006EFFA2@lotus.com>

You're very welcome.  I should probably clarify that the TAG's advice that 
http URIs SHOULD dereference to yield useful representations applies to 
all http URIs, and not just to those used for XML namespaces. 

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
06/23/2006 03:38 PM
 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, 
www-tag@w3.org
        Subject:        RE: CURIEs: A proposal


That's very helpful.

Thanks,
Misha
 

-----Original Message-----
From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: 23 June 2006 16:03
To: Misha Wolf
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org; semantic-web@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: RE: CURIEs: A proposal

Misha Wolf writes:

> 7f  whether the IRI mapped to the prefix is required to be 
dereferenceable.

I'm not sure I'd put it this way, as I think it's a matter of degree 
rather than "whether".  Specifically:

* I believe that, by definition, any http URI is dereferenceable, in the

sense that it is always appropriate to try a GET, except perhaps if your

intentions are malicious (denial of service, etc.)  Thus, for example, 
it's always OK for a crawler to attempt a GET or HEAD on an http URI
that 
it stumbles upon or cobbles up.

* The TAG has stated that it's always good practice for the authority to

cause representations to be available.  Now, here's where I think it's a

matter of degree.  I can imagine circumstances in which, notwithstanding

the TAG's general advice, one would go the other way.  If, for example,
a 
namespace were minted deep in the heart of some system, for uses really 
internal to that system, and from context we knew that it would be used 
for one or two documents of short lifetime and never again, well maybe 
then it's not worth the deployment cost of responding to GET requests. 
Still, it's a good thing at least in principle, so that if the crawler 
comes along, it gets a reasonable description.

So, I think the IRI mapped to the prefix is by definition
dereferenceable 
(if in the http scheme) in the sense that you can always try, and that 
resource authorities SHOULD in most cases offer a representation.
There 
is some wiggle room between that SHOULD and a MUST.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------


To find out more about Reuters visit www.about.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, 
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of 
Reuters Ltd.
Received on Friday, 23 June 2006 20:12:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:41 GMT