W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 2003

Re: URIQA!

From: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 00:35:03 -0400
Message-Id: <a05210601baf1fdede585@[10.0.1.2]>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: <www-talk@w3.org>, <uri@w3.org>

There is definitely value in having a defined way (or perhaps 
several) to get specific information about a URI. For example, an 
agent reading my FOAF file might note that my homepage has the type 
<http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/2002/web-threads/Weblog> and be able 
to use a URI query agent to learn about its definition rather than 
trying to download it.

I'm less clear about the need for a new HTTP header. As I see it, (1) 
the concise, bounded description of a URI reference is itself a 
resource worthy of a URI and (2) all the HTTP headers in the world 
won't help you get information about 
<http://example.org/document#fragment> or <news:foo@bar>. I would 
rather use <http://sw.org?uri=(encoded_stuff)> than a straight URI 
with an extra header.

(For a long term solution, what we would want is a way to describe a 
classes of web services. The class would define functions like 
concise_bounded_description(uri) and individual services would bind 
that to a particular set of URIs.)

-- 
Dave Menendez - zednenem@psualum.com - http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 00:34:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:27 GMT