W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Does follow-your-nose apply in the enterprise? was: RDF for molecules, using InChI

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:45:08 +0100
Message-ID: <46BAF034.3040205@musc.edu>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: ogbujic@ccf.org, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> Furthermore, there is a social expectation that if you share http uris 
> that you should be able to pop them into a web browser and get 
> something. A 404 means the uri you gave is *broken*. So you would have 
> to field lots of queries about the brokenness.
Again, it is social expectation.  I don't think HTTP sanctions the 404 
as *broken", which implies that the owner doesn't do such a good job.  
Say, for example, the httpRange-14 resolution says:

- If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a 4xx (error) 
response, then the nature of the resource is unknown.
I remember Roy Fielding said once (I forget where) that getting a 
resource is not about what the client expect to get but about what the 
resource owner INTENDS to put there.  If the link is "broken", it is the 
owner's intension to make it so.  
> Then when you deal with certain people, even explaining that you 
> didn't *mean* for them to derefernce doesn't settle the matter, 
> they'll ask you to put up *SOMETHING* at that URI, if only "This is 
> not meant to be dereferencable".
But, will LSID help that? Say if somewhere down the road LSID becomes 
popular and suddenly all browsers start to support it.  Wouldn't those 
people ask the same question again, so shall we need to start another 
round of discussion at then on LSID2?

Eric Jain put this nicely a couple of days ago, here I quote

"Indeed, especially since at the moment HTTP URIs will cost you at least 
5 cents a piece, whereas non-HTTP URIs may go for as little as 2 cents 

In any case, the most practical non-HTTP URIs that are in use at the 
moment seem to be LSIDs and DOIs; both have an associated resolution 
> And there's the stability problem. If you are trying to make something 
> that will last indefinitely, a bespoke URN (or URI scheme) which does 
> not depend on DNS ownership might be better. (PURL does *something* 
> toward this, of course.)
I have said this many times, stability is an issue of effort.  No 
technology alone can help you to solve that. If you own a URI (HTTP, 
LSID or not) you have to make an effort to make it do what you want it 
to do. For all those people who own some LSID now, aren't they worrying 
that if LSID do not get proper support down the road, their LSIDs will 
no longer be persistent?  But, isn't LSID is designed to cure that?  So, 
just a naming scheme won't give you the stability that is desired, it is 
effort in supporting it.  And so far, HTTP get the most support.

Also, I don't think a few broken URIs will hurt.  Web is just like a 
huge ecosystem, in which important resources (URIs) will survive.  Those 
who don't are mostly because they are not worthy or adaptive enough to 



Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 10:46:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:29 UTC