W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2009

Re: URI for abstract concepts (domain, host, origin, site, etc.)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:52:12 -0400
Message-ID: <4A4437DC.3090201@w3.org>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
CC: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>
Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 3:01 PM
> 
>> For domains, there's a proposed standard.
>> See:
>>
>> Domain Name System Uniform Resource Identifiers (RFC 4501) Josefsson
>> May
>> 2006.
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4501.txt
>>
>> According to that, the 1st would be:
>>
>>    dns:example.com
> 
> I am not sure this is useful because it has clear semantic meaning representing a DNS record, not some abstract concept.

Oops; OK. I didn't notice the subtlety.

> I can't figure out what a descriptor about dns:example.com actually mean because I don't know what a description of a DNS record means (other than comments).
> 
>> I can't find any RFCs on hosts, origins, etc.
>>
>> For abstract things in general, I like just
>> using dynamic lookup via http:
>>    http://anysite.you.can.publish.on/mydescription#host-site-whatever
> 
> How would a client know that this URI isn't for an actual HTTP resource without creating "well-known-location" URIs (option #1 in my original email)?

It _is_ for an actual HTTP resource; i.e. something
described/discussed in a document you can get by HTTP. Since
documents can describe/discuss anything, they can describe/discuss
things like origins and such. RDF is particularly suited
for this purpose, but I can imagine other media types
might work too... text/html with RDFa is pretty hip
these days.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 02:52:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:14 GMT