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

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

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:30:13 -0700
Message-ID: <4A47A8A5.3090905@oracle.com>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>
See inline
All the best, Ashok


Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:07 PM, ashok
> malhotra<ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
>   
>> Hi Eran:
>> Trying to understand your proposal.
>> By 'abstract' do you mean URIs for which a representation cannot be
>> retrieved?
>> So, perhaps, a chair?
>> My assumption was that for such resources you want to retrieve the metadata.
>>     
>
> Quibble: In the case of a chair, you can't get metadata, since a chair
> isn't data.
> http://www.google.com/search?q=define:metadata
>   
[AM]  Picky, picky :-)
> This is why it's nice that Eran calls the description resource a
> "description resource" instead of a "metadata resource". LRDD is a
> compatible alternative to linked-data 303 nose-following, one that
> (like 303, as David Booth has pointed out) behaves uniformly without
> caring whether the resource is "data"-like or not - it means you don't
> have to ask or answer that question. I advocate using his terminology.
>   
[AM] Yes, description resource is better,
> Perhaps an alternative to a new URI scheme for hosts would be loop
> detection inside of LRDD? I think that's close to what you're saying.
>   
[AM] I wrote the note mainly to make sure I understood Eran's usecase,
Your suggestion has merit.  Let's see what he says.
> -Jonathan
>
>   
Received on Sunday, 28 June 2009 17:31:14 GMT

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