RE: Real URLs for real things

Steven,

Great to hear XTech news. Thanks for this report. However, with all due
respect, I really dunno what you are trying to say here. It goes quite
against everything I believe in regarding linked data principles.

> And that set me thinking. Saying stuff about something that 
> doesn't have a URL is hard, hard in RDFa, hard in RDF, and 

Everything should have an URI to be usable on the Web of Data. 

> So, does anyone feel that they have enough energy for us to 
> propose a new type of URL, the primary topic of:

What is a 'new type of URL'? Do you mean a new schema? Do you mean URI?

> and so on. You would never be expected to dereference such a 
> URL, and you can see that you are talking about a meta 
> subject by inspection, and you can automatically derive:

Again. Use URIs. Use HTTP URIs. And follow your nose to more information
(hopefully again in RDF).

A lot of people had excellent thoughts on these issues, some worthwhile
readings are:

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Abstractions.html

http://dbooth.org/2007/uri-decl/

http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/

http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2007/11/once-more-on-information-resou
rces-and.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Dec/0157.html


However, it might well be the case that I didn't get the context due to
not attending XTech ;)

Cheers,
	Michael

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
 Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
---------------------------------------------------------- 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Steven Pemberton
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:54 PM
> To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Real URLs for real things
> 
> 
> Mark and I were at XTech last week. I gave my talk on "Why 
> you should have a Website" 
> (http://2008.xtech.org/public/schedule/detail/545) which 
> gives a background to why we need RDFa, and Mark gave a 
> lightning talk on RDFa.  
> But in fact RDFa seemed to be the buzzword of the conference, 
> and every other talk seemed to mention it. The most exciting 
> was Jeni Tennison's talk on adding RDFa to the London Gazette 
> (published daily since 1665).
> http://2008.xtech.org/public/schedule/detail/528
> 
> Another interesting one was about a Semantic Web search 
> engine called Sindice
> http://2008.xtech.org/public/schedule/detail/583
> in which the speaker talked about the sort of mistakes that 
> people made when encoding semantic information. For instance, 
> somewhere there is a FOAF page that says that Tim 
> Berners-Lee's homepage is http://www.w3.org/, and somewhere 
> else that says that W3C's home page is http://www.w3.org/, 
> and so the search engine concluded that Tim and W3C are the 
> same thing.
> 
> Another problem that was constantly recurring, he said, was 
> due to the confusion between a page, and the thing it represented.
> 
> And that set me thinking. Saying stuff about something that 
> doesn't have a URL is hard, hard in RDFa, hard in RDF, and 
> usually needs blanknodes, which our grandmothers are never 
> going to understand.
> 
> So, does anyone feel that they have enough energy for us to 
> propose a new type of URL, the primary topic of:
> 
> 	pto:http://www.w3.org/ is the W3C
> 	pto:http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee is Tim BL
> 	pto:mailto:timbl@w3.org is also Tim BL
> 	pto:http://rdfa.info/ is RDFa
> 
> and so on. You would never be expected to dereference such a 
> URL, and you can see that you are talking about a meta 
> subject by inspection, and you can automatically derive:
> 
> 	<pto:http://www.w3.org/> foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf 
> <http:www.w3.org/>
> 
> It seems to me that it would be far easier to use than all 
> that "#me"  
> stuff and all those 303 replies you have to organise to do it 
> right (or is it 302?).
> 
> Steven
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 15:30:57 UTC