- From: Ross Singer <rossfsinger@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:35:49 -0500
- To: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
- Cc: Georgi Kobilarov <georgi.kobilarov@gmx.de>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, "Zholudev, Vyacheslav V." <v.zholudev@jacobs-university.de>, "Rabe, Florian" <f.rabe@jacobs-university.de>
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > So far, I don't understand why it is recommended to have separate URIs for the > non-information resource and the (RDF/XML) information resource. This is because the URI for the RDF/XML is an identifier for the _document describing_ the non-information resource, but not the actual resource. They need to be disambiguated, because otherwise you wouldn't ever be able to assert anything about the RDF describing the resource (e.g. provenance or quality) - the RDF is its own resource, as well. To use an example Ian Davis uses to describe this: If you say http://iandavis.com/id/me sucks, you're saying Ian, the human being, sucks. If you say http://iandavis.com/id/me.rdf sucks, you are objecting to the way he made his FOAF document. (hey, it's his example, not mine) "You are not your FOAF." BTW the # uri style doesn't require all of your resources to be in some long document; it just provides the same disambiguation as above, without any need for .htaccess or redirects. So while an HTTP client requests: http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh2002000569 (which renders an HTML or RDF document), the non-information resource's URI is http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh2002000569#concept -- distinct from the former (they are different URIs), but available from the same HTTP request. -Ross.
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 02:36:23 UTC