- From: Haijie.Peng <haijie.peng@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:09:41 +0800
- To: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
- CC: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
于 2010/6/11 5:41, Christoph LANGE 写道: > Hi Nathan, > > thanks for your clarifying reply! That gave me the confirmation that we > were on the right track. Indeed I should not judge such issues from the > behavior of browsers that are not even RDF-aware. > During I was developing a PIM tool, I realized that the only useful part of URI is its uniqueness. URI has nothing to the representation of content and the semantic meaning of content).URI organize things in a tree model, but information/Knowledge is networked, so URI isn't suitable for organizing information/knowledge. This fact let me think about how to organize information/knowledge by itself, and then I found a way to search by 'knowledge'. regards Peng > Cheers, > > Christoph > > 2010-06-10 14:24 Nathan<nathan@webr3.org>: > >> ... >> >> long: >> I've asked this question and several related a few times over the past >> few months (hence responding). >> >> From what I can tell what URI Identifier and dereferencing process (+ >> Request Response chain which follows) are entirely orthogonal issues. >> >> To illustrate, if you dereference http://dbpedia.org/resource/London >> then the final RDF representation you get will be courtesy of >> http://dbpedia.org/data/London.[n3/rdf/ttl], but the RDF will still >> describe http://dbpedia.org/resource/London. >> >> If you consider from a client / code standpoint in a setup where you >> have two modules abstracted from each other, an HTTP Client and an RDF >> Parser, the RDF Parser will request something like: >> rdf = HTTP->get( uri ); >> What the HTTP Client does, the deferencing process, the request response >> chain which follows, the values in the HTTP Header fields, is completely >> abstracted, transparent to the RDF Parser and indeed of no concern. >> >> Thus regardless of how the HTTP request chain works out, if you try to >> get a RDF description for http://example.org/foo#bar then you'll still >> be looking for http://example.org/foo#bar in the RDF that you get back. >> >
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 23:10:17 UTC