- From: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:39:39 +0100
- To: Max Voelkel <max@xam.de>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
- Message-ID: <42515FBB.1030108@gnowsis.com>
Hi Max, everybody Es begab sich aber zu der Zeit 23.03.2005 21:32, da Max Voelkel schrieb: >>>At present, there is no formal, generalized mechanism whereby a Web Agent, >>>upon discovery of a URI, and lacking knowledge about that URI, can query the >>>Originator of the URI in order to obtain an RDF description of the URI. >>> >>> > >Lets compare URIs with symbols. When I discover a new term, I can not >ask the term, what it means. I ask a knowledge source (friends, books, >search engine) about it. > > wrong. You can ask the term. http://www.kwark.org/Gfx/2005/2005Week11/dscn9703.Pijkestraat.jpg.html click on "rat" http://www.kwark.org/x/person.pl?q=http%3A%2F%2Fxmlns.com%2Fwordnet%2F1.6%2FRat and then enter http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Rat and you are there. the term is the uri is the word is the resource is the graph. And that is much easier and I do not get a headache with "intermediate" systems i have to use to * get the uri * get the rdf * know where to query for it etc >Why do we have to make things different on the web? > see above. we already did it. >When I find >a RDF document with URIs I don't know i just ignore them. If the RDF >document was well-written it should contain rdf:seeAlso links to URLs >of RDF-documents describingthe terms. Mights this be a solution? > > it is, in files like "about-me foaf files" (i.e. http://www.leobard.net/foaf.xml) where I cannot identify a person by a uri because the person has hundreds of uris. so I use an anonymous resource, tag it with a owl:IFP (inverse functional property, sha1sum of mailbox) and then add, if known, the RDFS:seealso but for identifyable things (like rss etc) you MUST use the URL of the resource and everybody is happy. >It is inspired by the WWW approach of links and by the design >criterion of separation between identity (URI) and location (URL). I >think also "_:1 rdf:type foo:isCrawlable" or similiar would be >helpful. > > it does not help see http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html and the "Exercises" at the bottom. for them, we would have to do many more hacks. >My conclusion is thus we need no index.rdf, no URI originator, no MGET etc. >__ Location is not identity. __ > > thats not true in today's semantic web. all the good tools use uris as identity or owl:IFP's to identify stuff and a central/distributed index. You must not close your eyes against the killer applications: * RSS - over a zagillion websites using it - most of the weblogs and news sites items are identified by URL example: http://leobard.twoday.net/index.rdf * foaf codepiction - many many pics out there - the URL of the jpg is the resource identifier http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/discovery/2001/08/codepict/ * Wordnet - the term is the URL is the identifier http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Identifier > >Ok, what if somebody else adds statements about a URI? Well, then i >either need something like >a) a search engine = centralized infrastructure or >b) something like traceback = distributed, networked infrastructure > -> we need a standard for RDF-traceback-servers! > > > weblog traceback/pingback (or whats it called again...?) and: that's how the web works: GOOOOOOOGLE has the centralized infrastructure (and yahoo and msn and .....) they have the money to do it, so let them do it. fine with me, as long as there are more than one. cheers Leo btw, the good old uri crisis! we love it, every 3 months it comes up again :-) (I mentioned it to you in the talk i gave in karlsruhe back in november :-)
Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 15:39:42 UTC