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

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

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:53:31 -0700
To: "'Jonathan Rees'" <jar@creativecommons.org>, <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Cc: "'Eran Hammer-Lahav'" <eran@hueniverse.com>, <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>, "'URI'" <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002101c9f819$5a60bd50$0f2237f0$@org>
I'm thinking about revising
 http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html

to:
(1) to get rid of "duri" and just stick with "tdb"
  (because there isn't much use for duri at all)
(2) make it a URI scheme rather than a URN namespace
(3) make the date optional, for cases where the time of
  binding resource to representation (and of interpretation
  of that representation to an 'abstract concept')

So the simplest form would be

tdb:http://larry.masinter.net

which would neatly allow using descriptions of
abstract concepts to identify the abstract concept.
(Syntactically, the date can be left out without
ambiguity.)


Would this be helpful, at least for illustrative purposes?

I think there are other means for distinguishing
between the representation of a  description and 
the thing described, but this would at least
add a well-known method that isn't tied to
any particular protocol, linking method, resolution
method, etc.

tdb:data:,the%20host%20larry.masinter.net

might be a simple inline way of talking about the
'host' named 'larry.masinter.net'.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net
  

-----Original Message-----
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rees
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:43 AM
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; apps-discuss@ietf.org; www-tag@w3.org; URI
Subject: Re: URI for abstract concepts (domain, host, origin, site, etc.)

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

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.

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.

-Jonathan
Received on Sunday, 28 June 2009 17:54:10 GMT

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