W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Private naming conventions and hypermedia (was Re: Draft minutes from TAG telcon of 2008-07-24

From: Paul Prescod <prescod@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:49:59 -0700
Message-Id: <FC85A4D3-678F-433C-8C48-CA24251948E1@gmail.com>
To: dev <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>
Cc: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>


On 25-Jul-08, at 11:48 PM, dev <dev.akhawe@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> (1) and (2) are replications of the resource identified by the  
>> abstract
>> identifier (3).   They may be identical (and then again they may  
>> not), but
>> by what definition of "resource" are they the same resource?
>
> Am I wrong in thinking that if two resources have the different URI
> they are different ?

Yes, you are actually wrong. In general, URIs tell us nothing about  
resources, including whether two of them are "really" the same thing.  
One use for semantic web technologies is declarations of resource  
equivalence.

> We really don't care about whats the actual
> content inside is , do we ? Aren't you loosing the resource
> abstraction if you try and go deeper inside what each resource
> represents / returns /  whether its replicated or not etc. ?

If hypermedia or some other framework licenses the client to treat two  
URIs as equivalent then the client can do so.
>
>> Can you offer a suggestion that meets the requirements of the
>> applicant and also preserves the benefits of an HTTP URI?
>
> Although I don't know the requirements, ...

The requirements have been stated and summarized and re-summarized.

> I will say that whatever be
> the requirements it is always better to use hyper links than hard code
> any sort of state transition at the client side (i.e hard code an
> assumption at client side).

Application state transitions are not being discussed as far as I know.


>
>
> Thanks
> Devdatta
>
>
>
> 2008/7/25 Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>:
>>
>> I don't believe that:
>>
>> (1)   http://loc.gov/ark:/12025/654xz321
>> (2)  http://rutgers.edu/ark:/12025/654xz321
>> (3)  ark:/12025/654xz321
>>
>> Identify the same resource.
>>
>> (1) and (2) are replications of the resource identified by the  
>> abstract
>> identifier (3).   They may be identical (and then again they may  
>> not), but
>> by what definition of "resource" are they the same resource?
>>
>> As I see it, if you (hypothetically) were to resolve  ark:/ 
>> 12025/654xz321
>> then you are happy to get any replication.
>>
>> But http://loc.gov/ark:/12025/654xz321  resolves to the replication  
>> (of the
>> abstract resource identified by ark:/12025/654xz321) that resides at
>> loc.gov.   (Please see "aside" below.)
>>
>> And http://rutgers.edu/ark:/12025/654xz321  resolves to the  
>> replication (of
>> the abstract resource identified by ark:/12025/654xz321) that  
>> resides at
>> rutgers.edu.
>>
>> (Aside: loc does not participate in ARK, the ARK specification  
>> mistakenly
>> lists loc. But for discussion sake consider this a valid example.)
>>
>> So as I see it, (1) and (2) are different resources.  And (3) is a  
>> third
>> distinct resource.
>>
>> --Ray
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
>> To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
>> Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
>> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 12:41 PM
>> Subject: Private naming conventions and hypermedia (was Re: Draft  
>> minutes
>> from TAG telcon of 2008-07-24
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> HST [...] I think there's a fundamental issue we need to be clear  
>>>> on: is
>> it OK for a group of domain name owners to agree a naming  
>> convention amongst
>> themselves? In the ARK case, this trespasses on the WebArch advice  
>> wrt
>> aliasing, and in general might also seem to fall foul of the whole  
>> business
>> of URI opacity (that was Mark Baker's particular concern).
>>>
>>> "URI Opacity" is a term that I've found means different things to
>>> different folks, so I try to avoid it now.  But I do believe that
>>> private naming conventions do cause harm to the Web because they are
>>> essentially a proprietary form of link and link metadata.  If two  
>>> URIs
>>> at different domains identify the same resource, dereferencing one  
>>> of
>>> them should provide a declaration (Link header, RDFa, whatever) that
>>> the resource is the same (owl:sameAs or equivalent) as the other.
>>>
>>>> From a REST perspective, the architectural constraint that's being
>>> disregarded by this practice is "hypermedia as the engine of
>>> application state", and IMO, it's the constraint most responsible  
>>> for
>>> imparting Web-nature.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2008 16:50:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:02 GMT