W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2007

RE: Review of "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:27:24 +0100
Message-ID: <C4B3FB61F7970A4391A5C10BAA1C3F0DD34884@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Leo Sauermann" <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>, "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Susie Stephens" <susie.stephens@gmail.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Hello Leo,
 
Just to be clear... I have not read the new version - but will aim to do
so at least as a personal exercise.
 
I'd caution you against making assuming anything about what the TAG is
ok with - it sort of depends if you would be making any claims are made
regarding the TAGs disposition toward the document.
 
AFAIK any WG/IG can publish anything the W3C process allows them to
publish.
 
If SWEO want to wait on the TAG (rather than just me) expressing an
opinion it may take us a while to respond in full.
 
That said, your request [1] is an item on our meeting agenda for today.
 
Stuart
--
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Aug/0097
 

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks
RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England



________________________________

	From: Leo Sauermann [mailto:leo.sauermann@dfki.de] 
	Sent: 30 August 2007 11:38
	To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol); Richard Cyganiak;
'Susie Stephens'; www-tag@w3.org
	Subject: Re: Review of "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
	
	
	Hi Stuart,
	
	just a short note:
	based on the fact that we have realized most of your comments,
and you reading this discussion,
	I guess you are OK with the current version of the document and
therefore we can assume that the TAG is ok with the SWEO interest group
publishing it as a W3C Interest Group Note.
	
	?
	
	best
	Leo
	
	It was Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) who said at the right
time 29.08.2007 11:26 the following words: 

		Hello David, Leo,
		
		
		  

			-----Original Message-----
			From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) 
			Sent: 28 August 2007 19:53
			To: www-tag@w3.org; Williams, Stuart (HP Labs,
Bristol)
			Cc: Leo Sauermann
			Subject: RE: Review of "Cool URIs for the
Semantic Web"
			
			I missed Stuart's review of this "Cool URIs"
document 
	
http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~sauermann/2006/11/cooluris/
			when I was away on vacation, but recently saw
reference to it 
			and wanted to comment on one statement.
			
			    

				From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs,
Bristol) [ . . . ] wrt "Be on the 
				web": "Given only a URI, machines and
people should be able to 
				retrieve a description about this URI
from the web. ..."  This is a 
				little too loose, in that the
description is not about the URI but 
				about the resource to which the URI
refers.
				[ . . . ]
				      

			While I assume that the above statement reflects
the TAG's 
			accepted thinking on this topic to date, I think
it is 
			actually somewhat incorrect, and the original
phrasing by the 
			Cool URIs authors was actually better.
			    

		
		Actually I stand by the comment that I made, though I
think David is
		reading more into the intent of the comment than was
intended.
		
		The original text spoke of description of a URI. Taken
literally, there
		is very little of interest to describe of a URI: one
might say to what
		scheme it belongs; one might parse out the authority,
path, query and
		fragment components; one might be interested in how long
it is. There is
		little more to say of the URI itself. However, I don't
think it was the
		authors intent to encourage such descriptions. I believe
it more the
		case that the authors intended that the thing to be
described is the
		resource to which the URI is intended to be used to
refer. That at least
		is the spirit in which the comment was made.
		
		On the subject of your concept of "URI declarations" I
have not thought
		long and hard enough to comment in substance. That a
given description
		is obtained directly or indirectly (via redirection)
from a retrieval
		initiated using a given URI might afford that
description some special
		status in the 'eye' of an agent processing it. However,
I think that
		there are provenance and trust issues wrt to any
description obtained
		that affect would in general affect an agents
disposition to believe a
		given description. Some skeptisim on the part of the
agent is probably
		required regardless of source, if it is to be robust in
an open world.
		
		<snip/>
		
		  

			David Booth, Ph.D.
			HP Software
			+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
			http://www.hp.com/go/software
			
			Opinions expressed herein are those of the
author and do not 
			represent the official views of HP unless
explicitly stated otherwise.
			    

		
		Regards
		
		Stuart
		--
		Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road,
Bracknell, Berks
		RG12 1HN
		Registered No: 690597 England
		
		  



	-- 
	____________________________________________________
	DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 
	
	Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer 
	Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
	Trippstadter Strasse 122
	P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
	D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
	Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de
	
	Geschaeftsfuehrung:
	Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
	Dr. Walter Olthoff
	Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
	Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
	Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
	____________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 11:30:01 GMT

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