Re: [pedantic-web] Re: The OWL Ontology URI

On May 13, 2010, at 12:57 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> Well, according to http-range-14, as I understand it, if a bare URI  
> gives a
> 200-level response to an HTTP GET, then it (the URI) denotes/refers  
> to the
> resource that emits that response.
>
> I agreed with you for a while when you first wrote about this theory,
> since it's an elegant theory, but now I think it makes more sense to
> say that the *server* emits the response, not the document.
>
> Well then, say that the URI denotes whatever it is in the server  
> that the response is a REST-representation of. And Im pretty sure  
> that this is what I am (perhaps slightly loosely) here calling a  
> "document", ie, pretty much, some thing encoded in bytes in digital  
> memory. Not a set of triples, anyway.  The main point of my message  
> still stands: you can't refer to an RDF graph using a bare URI which  
> returns a 200 level code, because that reference is used up  
> referring to something else that is not a graph.
>
> Seems this denies 200 on any content negotiable resource, no? Since  
> any single one of the alternates "uses up" the URI, leaving nothing  
> left for the others?

I am not sure. If the content negotiation always resolves, then we can  
say that the URI is ambiguous and denotes, in each use, whatever it  
resolves to in that use. Better be careful with owl:sameAs then, of  
course.

Pat

> -Alan
>
>
>
> Not only
> is this more consistent with the way RFC 2616 and AWWW are written,
> but it lets you have a URI U that refers to a document, where a server
> responds with a 200 for GET U.
>
> That is exactly what I wanted to say. Perhaps my formulation which  
> has the document doing the responding is careless, apologies. (This  
> is why I like the 'http endpoint' way of talking, by the way.)
>
>
> This seems natural and desirable.
>
> Agreed. And to return to the main point, a document is not a graph,  
> no matter how you cut it.
>
> Pat
>
>
> But
> for any sensible definition of "document", <U> is going to be
> incapable of emitting a response. That's why it has a server to help
> it out...  in your formulation a 200 response would be prohibited
> since <U> can't emit it.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494  
> 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes