W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:37:18 -0500
Message-ID: <4CF01A7E.9040907@openlinksw.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: nathan@webr3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 11/26/10 12:49 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 14:30 +0000, Nathan wrote:
>>     http://webr3.org/apps/notes/web#atypedlink
>> partial story of creating /a/ semantic web, rather than /the/ semantic web.
> Thanks for posting this.  I like the reasoning, but one part I think is
> overstated to the point of being incorrect:
>    "It is critical to note, that you cannot name real world
>    things with URIs, you cannot name the moon with a URI,
>    just as you cannot send the moon through a computer."
> You later discuss the idea of using a URI to name something
> *as-described-by* a document, and this I think is a very good point to
> make.  But I don't think it invalidates the idea that you can name real
> world things with URIs.   I suggest toning down the above statement and
> further explaining the idea that the identity of a resource may not be
> unambiguously determined, but it is determined only to the extent that
> its description determines it.

I have a URI. I don't have a URL. A document describing me has a URL. A 
description has to occur on a surface (Document) otherwise it cannot be 
perceived by any beholder. The Subject of a description has to be 
distinct from its projector otherwise beholders are stuck with low- or 
no-resolution style projection. The Moon can have a URI that indicates 
its the Subject of a documented description.

There is a trinity that cannot be broken when it comes to structured 
descriptions: Referent, Identifier, Document .  This has been so long 
before the WWW came into existence.

Real World Entities have always had Identifiers. URIs don't change this 
reality. That's an accepted fact in a broad range of universes of 
discourse -- which includes AWWW .

A description of the Moon with a URI for Moon never implies the moon 
will come zooming out of the Web. It just means: an observer of the Moon 
can use Attribute=Value pairs to describe the Moon (referent) via a 
Document by coalescing these Attribute=Value pairs around the Moon's 
Identifier (Name).

If said observer performs the above in machine readable form, he/she is 
basically entering into the realm of EAV based structured data. Add 
hypermedia to the mix re., Documentation medium and we have Linked Data.

I have never read a note by TimBL that's indicated that you can't give 
URIs to real world objects. Ditto W3C.

I've never encountered any computer literature relating to Distributed 
Objects or Object Orientation that's indicated Data Objects, Entities, 
Data Items are devoid of Identity.

"Resource" overloading bug continues to haunt Semantic Web and Linked 
Data communications and comprehension :-)

Again, we can't break the trinity: Referent, Identifier, Document -- 
which is the container, disseminator, and projector of Content defined 
by a Model that is logic based re., hypermedia based structured data.

Roy Fielding wasn't describing Linked Data (Distributed Data Objects) in 
his famous thesis. He was describing a better approach to Document 
Oriented Client-Server Middleware via HTTP.

The Document Oriented Middleware vs Remote Procedure Calls Oriented 
middleware has been raging for eons, long before WWW. This subject 
matter is a vast realm on to itself re. history. Today, we talk about 
REST vs SOAP, without always knowing that they're just today's monikers 
for an age-old battle in the realm of Client-Server Middleware.



Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Friday, 26 November 2010 20:37:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:51 UTC