W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2006

Re: A URI for the class of SOAP MEPs

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:00:49 -0500
Message-Id: <80E92613-E693-4DFC-A181-7367E2F0C79C@w3.org>
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>

On Jan 19, 2006, at 12:39, Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> Hi Noah, TAG,
> the suggestion to use a section URI for the concept defined in the
> section was first (to my knowledge) discussed in WS-Description WG,
> as those WG members who aren't SemWeb-fluent didn't see the point of
> inventing new URIs for the purpose of the RDF mapping.

RDF is made of URIs.
Making up a URI should not be a big deal.
Just make an RDF document and stick in what you know about the
needed things.

If analogy is needed, by analogy with
mapping non-XML format into XML,  it as though "some members
of the group not so familiar with XML didn't see the need to make
up tags when defining a mapping into XML"

> I haven't seen the RDDL discussion on the TAG list, I'll try to have a
> look. I guess the problems of resource vs. its description, and "what
> are really resources identified with URIs with fragment IDs in them?"
> are pretty subtle.
> Is there a summary of the points against using such section URIs to
> indicate concepts?

Basically, if you use the URI of a section of an HTML document
or of a document, then that is a an identifier used by the document  
for that purpose.  It should not be overloaded.
(For example, you might find that your class is also a RDDL nature,
or something else, because some other group decided to reuse the same
URI for some other class. And you might discover that the the two
classes are quite different things, or the other thing isn't a class  
at all.
Also, an RDF engine might make assertions about the part of the  
which are inconsistent with the assertions one would  make about the  

> Best regards,
> Jacek
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 18:06 -0500, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
>> On distApp Jacek Kopecky raised a question [1] as to whether it  
>> would be
>> appropriate to use the URI of a section in the SOAP Recommendation to
>> identify the class of all possible SOAP Message exchange patterns.

It would not.  URIs should be used to identify one thing
and one thing only.  They are not expensive - we do not have to  
Reusing one which has actually been used to identify something else
is not appropriate.

>> I have
>> suggested that a separate URI would be more appropriate [2].


>>   I think the
>> SOAP question is the direct analog of the RDDL natures discussion  
>> we've
>> been having here.


>> Noah
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/ 
>> 0103.html
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/ 
>> 0110.html
>> --------------------------------------
>> Noah Mendelsohn
>> IBM Corporation
>> One Rogers Street
>> Cambridge, MA 02142
>> 1-617-693-4036
>> --------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 15:01:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:55 UTC