RE: Data Identification section (was Re: reviewing the BP doc)

Phil,

You told me recently about the hash-URIs as identifiers for real-world
objects and I liked the approach, but I am not sure if I understand your
reasoning here.

I understand that you want to use http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf#me to
identify you as a person. 

That is fine, but it is what you *want* it to mean. If I don't know your
intention, the only thing I see is a URL, namely the locator for a piece of
RDF in the file http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf. What happens when I click on
'your' URI is that I get back a file with some RDF and status code 200
(success) which I think implies that I get back a (piece of a) document that
is located at the location #me in the file http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf.

So I do think http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf#me is a URL to a piece of code
that describes you that you want to be used as an identifier for you as a
person.

Makx.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
> Sent: 19 August 2015 16:30
> To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>; Manuel.CARRASCO-
> BENITEZ@ec.europa.eu
> Cc: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Data Identification section (was Re: reviewing the BP doc)
> 
> Sorry Annette, on this rare occasion I must disagree with you.
> 
> http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf#me is a URI. It is not a URL as it
identifies a
> resource, me, that, like any other physical object, or concept, cannot be
> obtained over the internet. I do not have a network location.
> 
> http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf is a URL, it identifies a resource that
does have
> a network location, i.e. it can be obtained directly over the internet.
> 
> So there's a hierarchy here of URIs, HTTP URIs and URLs.
> 
> As evidence, let me quote RFC 3986 (the definition of URIs,
> https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt), section 1.1.3:
> 
> 
> 1.1.3. URI, URL, and URN
> 
> A URI can be further classified as a locator, a name, or both. The
> term "Uniform Resource Locator" (URL) refers to the subset of URIs
> that, in addition to identifying a resource, provide a means of
> locating the resource by describing its primary access mechanism
> (e.g., its network "location").
> 
> RFC 3987 introduces the even more general IRI which allows Unicode
> characters outside the limited ASCII set.
> 
> The WG has made it clear that it wants to avoid providing any discussion
> of the issue. That seems fine to me as it avoids unnecessary confusion,
> BUT, if we're not going to say something along the lines of "we know all
> these things are different but for simplicity we'll just use the one
> term" then we must use the correct term in the correct place.
> 
> Last week we ended up voting on a proposed resolution:
> 
> PROPOSED: In general URI should be used in the BP doc, but depending on
> the context, URL may also be used.
> 
> This didn't meet with consensus - some people were unsure, Tomas was
> opposed.
> 
> Looking at other W3C specs btw, we use IRI pretty much everywhere. See,
> for example, http://www.w3.org/TR/tabular-metadata/.
> 
> So the hierarchy is:
> 
> IRI
> URI
> HTTP URI
> URL
> 
> Therefore, IMO, the correct course of action in this, a technical
> specification document, is to use the term IRI except where context
> dictates that another term be used.
> 
> Phil.
> 
> On 13/08/2015 19:54, Annette Greiner wrote:
> > For our document, URIs and URLs are the same thing, since we are not
> concerned with entities that don't have a location on the web. The
> document uses URI currently. I'm fine with keeping that or using URL
instead.
> Either way, my point is that we don't need to launch into a discussion of
the
> differences. I'm fine with a footnote referencing RFC 3986 if people feel
it's
> necessary.
> > -Annette
> > --
> > Annette Greiner
> > NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> > 510-495-2935
> >
> > On Aug 13, 2015, at 2:02 AM, Manuel.CARRASCO-BENITEZ@ec.europa.eu
> wrote:
> >
> >> Annette,
> >>
> >> We should just use URL, the subset of URI with a network location
> mechanism. We *cannot* redefine term such URL and we must just point to
> the source specifications: we cannot break the existing specifications.
> >>
> >> I agree that the document is getting to long and hence the proposition
to
> separate the identification: it is easier to produce and consume.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Tomas
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Annette Greiner [amgreiner@lbl.gov]
> >>
> >> Sent: 12 August 2015 20:11
> >>
> >> To: Phil Archer
> >>
> >> Cc: CARRASCO BENITEZ Manuel (DGT); public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: Data Identification section (was Re: reviewing the BP doc)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 12, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> * ?R?
> >>
> >> URI, URL, URN, IRI. Just use URI everywhere and add something like:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>   "In this specification, the term URI is used for the identification
schemes:
> URI, URL, URN and IRI ..."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This is line with the recommendation in RFC3986
> >>
> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-1.1.3
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>   " ... Future specifications and related documentation should use the
> general term "URI" rather than the more restrictive terms "URL" and
> "URN" ..."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> But
> >> we *want* to be restrictive. We're only talking about HTTP URIs, we're
> not talking about URNs, or even URLs. Hence I think we need to say
> something, no?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Funny, I take the fact that we want to be restricted to discussing URIs
as a
> reason *not* to add a discussion about them vs. URNs or URLs. The fact
that
> we use a term in our document doesn't mean that we have to define it. It
is
> defined elsewhere in W3C
> >> space plenty. Our document is already annoyingly long; let's help
readers
> get to what is helpful information and leave out discussion that is not
unique
> to publishing data on the web.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Annette Greiner
> >>
> >> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> >>
> >> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> >>
> >> 510-495-2935
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
> 
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1

Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2015 16:03:12 UTC