Re: Content negotiation: Why always redirect from non-information resource to information resource?

Richard Light wrote:
> In message <>, Kingsley Idehen 
> <> writes
>> URLs Identify the Location (Address) of Information Resources 
>> (documents or data containers). Thus, I don't see them as 
>> representing the subject of discourse. I see them as containers of 
>> data which may or may not be structured. Re. Linked Data, they are 
>> containers of structured descriptions, and by virtue of Generic URI 
>> abstraction bound to the Referent Identified by the entire Generic 
> Quite right: sorry.  I meant URI here.
>>> In general, allowing a single non-information resource URL to be 
>>> associated with a wide variety of machine-processible formats gives 
>>> us the potential to expand the power and expressiveness of the 
>>> Linked Data web in new ways.
>> Not totally following you, bearing in mind Linked Data is about 
>> entity-attribute-value model graph tapestry and representation 
>> (various). That said, I do agree that multiple representations of the 
>> content of information resources is a good and powerful thing 
>> courtesy of HTTP's inherent sophistication etc.. Any two uniquely 
>> identified things can participate in a 3-tuple claim (triple) via a 
>> uniquely identified predicate.
> Maybe that's just a matter of how we choose to scope the term "Linked 
> Data".  My point relates to what you might term the 
> machine-processible web, and the information engineering that it 
> allows you to do.  If you want to confine the term "Linked Data" to 
> the EAV bit of that world, no problem.
> My key point is the unique, persistent URIs have a practical utility 
> that goes beyond what you can do with them in Linked Data mode (in 
> your sense).  
I truly believe my sense is on the boundless side :-)

The context switch in my world view is that pointers aren't operating 
system constrained anymore. My object references and addresses of their 
representations (eav graphs) straddle the expanse of the HTTP network 
within which they are used (public or private).
> And that mixing and matching Linked Data, Topic Maps and full-text XML 
> (etc.) can potentially take us to some exciting new places.  (But then 
> that's hardly news.  I remember discussing the value of URNs for this 
> sort of purpose some time around 1994.)
I agree, and I am simply saying: Topics are Things too, and they can 
exist in EAV/CR model relationship graphs.

I think we are exhibiting semantic pedantry here based on our individual 
world views, which is fine, since this is really what this whole gig is 
supposed to facilitate :-)

> Best wishes,
> Richard



Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Twitter: kidehen 

Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 14:49:10 UTC