- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 23:51:21 -0400
- To: "Xiaoshu Wang" <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Cc: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On Jul 21, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > >> notwithstanding, I'd rather know that I am dealing with a >> non-information resource *before* I touch the network. > > I am very puzzled, how can you tell a IR or non-IR given any URI, > unless you > have the knowledge about all URI before hand? Don't you have to > de-reference the URI at first hand? ' If you have an ontology, typically the URI is the subject of many triples. I assume that some of those triples tell you something about what would happen if you dereference the URI. You are right in the sense that if I receive a naked URI in the email I'll have to dereference it to learn something about it. OTOH, this is not the case I am thinking about. I am more concerned with URIs that I find in a SW context - namely part of a graph - a packet of SW information in some message. I expect my ontology to be clear about such things as whether a thing is an information resource or not. >> So my proposal suggests a class that defines ways of transforming >> the URI you find in a SW document into URLs that get specific types of > information. > > I would also be cautious about that. This seems to be similar to what > the > web service is doing. I hope we don't try to reinvent the wheel, > especially > it isn't a small wheel to invent by any means. Not sure what you mean here. The intention was to provide a mechanism for indirection similar to what is desired by the LSID spec, but explicitly represented in the same way I represent the rest of my SW content, rather than by using another network protocol, like the LSID, DNS, etc. -Alan
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 03:51:35 UTC