W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Editor's Draft of ISSUE-57 URI Usage Primer

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:08:58 -0400
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1349802538.18784.12863.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Hi Noah,

On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 03:15 -0400, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
>  . . .  Speaking for myself, not the TAG as a whole: 
> it never occurred to me that the usage primer would be taken to discourage 
> the "minting" separate URIs for landing page and subject. I assume everyone 
> involved thinks thats architecturally preferable when practicle.
> I read the primer as providing useful advice for the many situations in 
> which, for good or bad reasons, such separate URIs are not created.

I think it's important to distinguish between different roles in the URI

 - For an RDF *author* -- i.e., someone/something writing and publishing
RDF -- the author has the choice of making the distinction between the
landing page and its subject.  If he/she chooses to make this
distinction, then he/she can further choose how to do so, and two of the
options would be: (a) to mint separate URIs for them; or (b) to use the
punning properties technique described in

 - For an RDF *consumer* -- i.e., someone/something that reads RDF --
the consumer has no choice about whether the RDF that was received makes
the landing-page-versus-its-subject distinction: it either does or it
doesn't.  So AFAICT, the punning properties technique is not intended
for this case.  In this case what's needed is an after-the-fact way of
"splitting" the resource identity, as described (sketchily) here:

So it seems to me that the situation in which the punning-properties
approach would be applicable -- the RDF authoring situation -- is a
situation in which the author probably would have the choice of using
that approach or minting separate URIs.

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 17:09:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:17 UTC