W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > August 2016

Re: Question about identifiers

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 12:03:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz40w_axC6SQKBSzR7NnLMz9qs5YAsf77-DD8DjeiQbgsrg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Cc: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, "SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, "Joshua Lieberman (jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com)" <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, Byron Cochrane <bcochrane@linz.govt.nz>
On 19 August 2016 at 11:11, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
wrote:

> Yes…  it is generally easier to make meaningless IDs persistent. But it is
> nice to have URIs that are human readable. In the Dutch URI strategy we do
> advise having human-readable parts in the URI scheme, but say that
> officially these mean nothing i.e. we say it is extremely ill-advised to
> ascribe any meaning to {concept} **for the machine**. URIs are opaque in
> a technical sense. Meanwhile, however, they do give hints to human readers.
>

Then how can you tell humans that they can interpret the URI and tell
machines that they should not? Is there a mechanism for doing that?

Greetings,
Frans


>
>
> *Van:* Ed Parsons [mailto:eparsons@google.com]
> *Verzonden:* vrijdag 19 augustus 2016 11:02
> *Aan:* Frans Knibbe; SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)
> *CC:* Linda van den Brink; Joshua Lieberman (jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com);
> Byron Cochrane
> *Onderwerp:* Re: Question about identifiers
>
>
>
> While I accept that the current view of URI schemes having no explicit
> meaning, I do see great value in the /{municipality}/{quarter}/
> {neighbourhood} as a simple way of expressing geographical hierarchy independent of
> geometry... What's the worst that could happen ?
>
>
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 at 09:30 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> A prime requirement of good URI minting is to not put any meaning in the
> URI, at least no meaning that is somehow intended for consumers. Everything
> that needs to be said about a resource, like its membership of data
> collections or its versioning, can be said in the data that is returned
> when the URI is dereferenced.
>
>
>
> URI schemes like /{municipality}/{quarter}/{neighbourhood} could be
> dangerous, because consumers could inadvertently try to derive meaning from
> such an URI. The usefulness of such a scheme in URI minting is also
> doubtful, because administrative structure can change in time. That could
> complicate the URI minting procedures over time.
>
>
>
> I do wonder to what extent common web crawlers try to parse URIs and
> attach meaning to URI parts.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Frans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 18 August 2016 at 22:55, Byron Cochrane <bcochrane@linz.govt.nz> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I like the guidance under the URI-Strategy under Hierarchical URIs
> generally, but have some reservations to this intelligent identifiers
> approach.
> For metadata access I think it is a good thing.  Most metadata for an
> individual features will usually reside at the dataset or collection
> (better term) level.  This hierarchical approach makes this metadata easy
> to access.
>
> But this built in intelligence makes the permanence of the URIs more
> difficult.  For example, administrative boundaries change through mergers
> and annexations.  A spatial thing that was in one collection is now in
> another.  The URIs for these things then confuse more than help.  URI
> redirects are one way to deal with this, but perhaps tracking these
> relationships through applied ontologies such as skos:broader and
> skos:narrower is the better practice?
>
> No answers from me here, just questions.
>
> Cheers,
> Byron
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Linda van den Brink [l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:28 PM
> To: Joshua Lieberman (jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com)
> Cc: SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)
> Subject: Question about identifiers
>
> Hi Josh,
>
> Coming back to the telecon yesterday:
>
>
> <joshlieberman> Should identifiers be part of a system for the features of
> interest?
>
> joshlieberman: making identifiers part of a system, where the features are
> part of the system?
> ... for example corresponding to paths in a taxonomy
>
> Linda: no answer right now, will have to think about it
>
> Were you talking about recommending some system for creating HTTP URI
> identifiers, i.e. some sort of URI strategy or pattern? Specifically where
> the features can be organised into some system like a hierarchy, as with
> administrative regions? There are some examples from Geonovums testbed here
> https://github.com/geo4web-testbed/topic3/wiki/URI-Strategy under
> Hierarchical URIs.
>
> Just trying to understand what you mean… we could add some guidance to the
> BP about this. I think that would be helpful.
>
> Linda
>
> ______________________________________
> Geonovum
> Linda van den Brink
> Adviseur Geo-standaarden
>
> a: Barchman Wuytierslaan 10, 3818 LH Amersfoort
> p: Postbus 508, 3800 AM Amersfoort
> t:  + 31 (0)33 46041 00
> m: + 31 (0)6 1355 57 92
> e:  l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl<mailto:r.beltman@geonovum.nl>
> i:  www.geonovum.nl<http://www.geonovum.nl/>
> tw: @brinkwoman
>
> This message contains information, which may be in confidence and may be
> subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must
> not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message. If you have
> received this message in error, please notify us immediately (Phone 0800
> 665 463 or info@linz.govt.nz) and destroy the original message. LINZ
> accepts no responsibility for changes to this email, or for any
> attachments, after its transmission from LINZ. Thank You.
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Ed Parsons *FRGS
> Geospatial Technologist, Google
>
> Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501
> www.edparsons.com @edparsons
>
Received on Friday, 19 August 2016 10:03:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:25 UTC