W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Explaining the benefits of http-range14 (was Re: [HTTP-range-14] Hyperthing: Semantic Web URI Validator (303, 301, 302, 307 and hash URIs) )

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:04:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4EA00056.8050704@openlinksw.com>
To: public-lod@w3.org
On 10/20/11 1:26 AM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19 October 2011 23:36, Nathan<nathan@webr3.org>  wrote:
>> Leigh Dodds wrote:
>>> On 19 October 2011 20:48, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com>  wrote:
>>>> On 10/19/11 3:16 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
>>>>> RFC3983:
>>>>>
>>>>> "A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact sequence of
>>>>> characters that identifies an abstract or physical resource."
>>>> Yes, I agree with that.
>>>>> 2 URIs, therefore 2 resources.
>>>> I disagree with your interpretation though.
>>> But I'm not interpreting anything there. The definition is a URI
>>> identifies a resource. Ergo two different URIs identify two resources.
>> Nonsense, and I'm surprised to hear it.
>>
>> Given two distinct URIs the most you can determine is that you have two
>> distinct URIs.
>>
>> You do not know how many resources are identified, there may be no
>> resources, one, two, or full sets of resources.
>>
>> Do see RFC3986, especially the section on equivalence.
>>
> OK, so maybe there is interpretation here :)
>
> My reading is that, without additional knowledge, we should assume
> that different URIs identify different resources. I think the wording
> of RFC 3986 is fairly clear that a URI identifies a resource, so
> assuming multiple resources for multiple URIs is fine - as a starting
> position. I do understand that two  URIs can be aliases.
>
> The section on equivalence you refer to suggests ways to identify
> equivalence ranging from syntactic comparisons up to network protocol
> operations. The latter gives us additional information (status codes,
> headers) that can determine equivalence.
>
> To go back to Kingsley's original example, I don't see any equivalence
> of those URIs at the syntactic or network level
>
> L.
>

What about the conceptual level? Where the core concept is about use of 
URIs as mechaisms network scale indirection re. data access.

This isn't about syntax, and I think that's one of the issues that leads 
to confusion.

As for equivalence, when you stay within the conceptual realm of 
indirection, that too becomes clear esp. as conceptual equivalence via 
name based indirection is covered with regards to the basic principle of 
object identity [1].

Linked Data's use of indirection is ultimately about formalizing the Web 
as a data space that's data object identity aware.

Link:

1. 
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/OODBMS/Manifesto/htManifesto/node4.html 
.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen







Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 11:05:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:17 UTC