Re: the state of ldp-patch, and a procedural proposal

On 10/3/13 2:56 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
> hello kingsley.
>
> On 2013-10-03 11:40 , "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> A URI denotes an Entity. That's it.
> i'd say it identifies a resource, but i guess that's just a different
> preference for terminology.
>
>> There are many kinds of Entities, perceptible across a variety of media.
>> The beauty of HTTP URIs that leverage the fragment ID is that they
>> enable you denote any kind of entity without introducing ambiguity,
>> while also delivering many other HTTP virtues on a platter.
>> <#this> denotes a Post .
>> <> denotes a Document.
> that may be the case for some resources that you control, because you
> choose to support this interpretation. for other resources (such as web
> pages), ...#this might very well reference the <p id="this"> paragraph in
> that page. you cannot define how fragment identifiers generally work,
> because they depend on the resource owner, not on your interpretation of
> what they may mean.

My point is that HTTP URIs denote entities (things).

> "The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by
> the set of representations that might result from a retrieval action on
> the primary resource. The fragment's format and resolution is therefore
> dependent on the media type retrieved representation, even though such a
> retrieval is only performed if the URI is dereferenced." (RFC 3986)

A URI denotes.

An HTTP URI denotes and locates.

In the context above, assuming an RDF based Linked Data interpretation, 
an HTTP URI can denote an entity such that when looked-up an agent is 
provided with access to a description of what the URI denotes [1][2].

If the interpretation in question has nothing to do with RDF based 
Linked Data, it still doesn't change the fundamental fact that URIs 
(irrespective of scheme) denote entities (things).

As I keep on repeating, it really isn't complicated.

>
> personally, i never really liked that part of web architecture very much,
> because it means that if you do things such as content negotiation, it is
> your responsibility to make sure that fragment identifiers work
> consistently across supported media types.

I read it differently, and I find it a great showcase for architectural 
dexterity .

> which is doable, but just feels
> a bit strange. i think there's a lot of history to why this is how it is,
> and starting from scratch this part of web architecture could be designed
> a little bit better now, but that's mostly an interesting thought
> experiment. the main point to keep in mind is: fragment identifier
> semantics are not defined by URIs or URI schemes, they are defined by
> media types.

Nothing to do with media types, nothing at all. URIs are the denotation 
mechanism that sit at the core of AWWW.

Links:

[1] http://bit.ly/15tk1Au -- HTTP URIs with fragment Identifiers (aka. 
hash based HTTP URIs) illustrated re. RDF based Linked Data systems
[2] http://bit.ly/WAJGCp -- hash based HTTP URI dexterity explained in a 
single slide
[3] http://bit.ly/10Y9FL1 -- Original WWW Proposal embellished with HTTP 
URIs (showcasing denotation and interpretation in when the system in 
question is RDF based and Linked Data principles compliant)  .

Kingsley
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen