RE: Request for feedback: HTTP-based Resource Descriptor Discovery

> From: Jonathan Rees
> 
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-00
> [ . . . ]
> - I anticipate some confusion as to whether the link relates the
>    resource to the DR (as in the POWDER 'describedby' definition you
>    quote), the URI to the DR, or the URI to the DR's URI (as in the
>    second sentence of section 6).  In RDF, <resource> describedby <dr>
>    is most natural to write, but RDF semantics rules out the
>    possibility that this might say anything specific to a particular
>    URI naming the resource[*].  This protocol is an 
>    opportunity for the
>    URI owner to say things not only about the resource but about the
>    URI/resource binding itself, such as its authority, provenance, and
>    stability, and that will vary with URI, not resource, as each URI
>    might have a different "owner".
> 
>    This issue may be esoteric enough that addressing it might be more
>    confusing than not, but I want you to consider yourself forewarned.

But this is *exactly* the issue that arises when one wishes, for example, to indicate that one URI has been deprecated by another URI: you need to talk about the *URI*, not about the resource *denoted* by the URI.  So I do think it is important to raise this point.  This has come up in other discussions, BTW, such as
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Jul/0274.html



David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.