- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:13:48 -0400
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- cc: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Egon Willighagen" <egon.willighagen@gmail.com>, "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "Michel_Dumontier" <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>, "Jonathan A Rees" <jar@mumble.net>
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 14:59 -0400, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) > What has caused this thinking to shift more recently is the realization > that: (1) HTTP URIs can be used as globally unambiguous names (or > "identifiers") of things other than web pages (or "information > resources"); and (2) the use of an HTTP URI does *not* imply that HTTP > must be used to retrieve a representation or other information about it. I agree (wholeheartedly with point number 2), however (as I'm sure you know) this stands in *direct* opposition to the Linked Data philosophy. The risk of not properly communicating this second point to the growing community of SW software developers is exponential increase of the load on HTTP servers. Something has to give. We either need to do the due diligence in educating consumers of semantic-web-friendly on the proper use of the HTTP scheme with RDF terms or educate them to the merits of URI schemes which don't have a (built-in) network resolution component but do have well defined semantics for identity management. I would argue that the disconnect between your point 2 above (a necessary first step) and the (once unspoken but now clearly articulated) expectation of being able to get useful information from *all* RDF URI terms in the HTTP scheme is a symptom of a bad problem with very negative consequences. > In other words, it has to do with more clearly understanding the dual > use of an HTTP URI both as a locator and as a location-independent name. Yes, and there are mixed signals being given which don't help reaching such an understanding. > Rather, the purpose was to clearly show the *superiority* of HTTP URIs > to *all* URN schemes or sub-scheme, without having to quibble about the > details of any particular URN scheme or sub-scheme. The superiority you speak of mostly comes from the opaque nature of the HTTP scheme components which have nothing to do with network resolution. Consider EBNF which is opaque about everything else except lexical constraints. You can express most (if not all?) XML schemas in an EBNF, but that doesn't negate the value of using XML schemas to define families of XML documents. -- Chimezie Ogbuji Lead Systems Analyst Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Cleveland Clinic Foundation 9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26 Cleveland, Ohio 44195 Office: (216)444-8593 ogbujic@ccf.org =================================== Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals in America by U.S. News & World Report (2007). Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for a complete listing of our services, staff and locations. Confidentiality Note: This message is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. Thank you.
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 14:14:08 UTC