W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > October to December 2004

RE: Request for Review of TAG AWWW 2nd LC Draft.

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:51:42 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50ADD0E@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <phayes@ihmc.us>, <skw@hp.com>
Cc: <public-webarch-comments@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us]
> Sent: 06 October, 2004 19:49
> To: Stuart Williams
> Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org; Stickler Patrick
> (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
> Subject: Re: Request for Review of TAG AWWW 2nd LC Draft.
> 
> 
> >[Bcc'd TAG to avoid further cross-posting]
> >
> >I have read (quickly) over Pats annotated version at 
> >http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/2004-PatHayesComments.html
> 
> Thanks for doing this excellent summary.
> 
> >Interestingly in the 2nd para of his comments after "Assign distinct 
> >URI..." he says: "One qualification to the above: it is reasonable 
> >to require this kind of unmambiguous distinctness when we expect 
> >that URIs will be dereferenced, i.e. used to access things, and the 
> >thing accessed is what the meaning is. .... But access is one thing, 
> >and naming/reference is something else. Probably this wouldnt 
> >matter, if it were not for the fact that semantic web formalisms use 
> >URIs to refer with no presumption of accessibility, which rather 
> >forces one to make the distinction more carefully. "
> 
> Re. the above, a recent msg from Patrick Stickler at Nokia may be 
> relevant. He is addressing the topic of 'named graphs' in a 
> discussion of whether a blank node could be used as a name (no); but 
> I want to draw your attention to the attitude expressed towards URIs 
> and naming versus dereference.  (Patrick, forgive me for forwarding 
> this without permission.)

No problem. It was, in any case, a public posting, even if not
directed specifically to the TAG.

Cheers,

Patrick

> -------
> 
> .......I wanted to
> offer one additional comment...
> 
> Even if a URI is required as a graph name, it need not involve
> any significant mental or management effort to decide what URI
> to use, if either (a) one does not care if the URI is human
> readable (mnemmonic) and/or (b) one does not care if the URI
> is dereferencable (though I think folks should).
> 
> E.g. one can simply employ UUIDs either in an http: URI
> 
>     http://example.com/id/dae07413-018c-43dc-9a0e-503a46484585
> 
> or in a uuid: or guid: URI
> 
>     uuid:dae07413-018c-43dc-9a0e-503a46484585
>     guid:dae07413-018c-43dc-9a0e-503a46484585
> 
> or in a urn:uuid: URN
> 
>     urn:uuid:dae07413-018c-43dc-9a0e-503a46484585
> 
> etc. etc.
> 
> Thus, folks who tend to get their undies in a wad about having to
> use http: URIs for stuff they don't consider "web accessible" or
> folks who suffer angst about the linguistic baggage potentially
> carried by a human readable URIs can relax (a bit).
> 
> -------
> 
> Pat
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2004 05:52:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:47 UTC