- From: Michael K. Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:40:26 -0500
- To: Linking Open Data <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>, John Black <JohnBlack@kashori.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Pat, You have my vote in spades! Ahh, I smell the sweet waft of wisdom. Now, do you care to tackle URIs v URLs and dereferencing? :) Mike Pat Hayes wrote: >> Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> writes: > > ... > >> > Try this for size. > > ... > >> That's not bad. I don't think it gets the "old web" right, though. > > Possibly not. I realize that the old Web is pretty darn complicated, > and admit that others (such as Tim and Roy) have a much better grasp > of its intricacies than I ever want or will have. So maybe my 'http > endpoint' criterion is too architecturally simplistic. Nevertheless, > I think the spirit is clear: an information resource is some > computational network entity that can deliver responses to transfer > protocols, even if this 'entity' is distributed, virtual (like a > hypothetical web server that knows the abstract text of some > international agreement and can deliver it in any European language, > which is in fact a bunch of servers with a content negotiator > standing in front of them) and maybe other things I have never heard > of: still, it has to be able to somehow be suitably active in the > matter of moving information around the internet. As I say, for full > details ask someone who knows the details, probably Tim or Roy. But > in any case, things that aren't active in this way, aren't > information resources. > >> It >> doesn't really explain the many web pages which look completely >> different depending on your cookies or IP address. > > What have web pages got to do with it, still less what they look > like? The representation that REST talks about in cases like this is > still the (single) representation of the (single) resource. If it > gets hacked around by your cookies on your machine, that's not the > Web's fault. > >> And it suggests that >> the end-point of an HTTP request corresponds one-to-one to the URI, but >> in fact the mapping between URIs and web server processes is >> many-to-many. > > OK, I admit I get lost in the weeds at this point. But see above. > >> And it's still pretty darn complicated. :-) >> >> I'd love to see a New Architecture Of the WWW, that covers old and >> Semantic web in a few simple pages, but the old one isn't quite broken >> enough yet to motivate its acceptance, even if we could figure it out. > > Im not saying its broken at all. What is broken is getting > architecture muddled up with semiotics. I don't think the > *architecture* of the SWeb is any different from that of the Web. > Just admit that the description of the architecture is exactly what > it says it is, and leave the semantics to a different document. Then > we wouldn't have honest folk trying to understand the architecture > document using intuitions from semantics, and getting utterly > confused. And, we can write a Semantics of the Semantic Web which > will refer to the Architecture of the Web but won't get confused with > it. > > Here's how to do it: > > (1) distinguish at the get-go between reference and access. > (2) have the architecture document talk about access and not mention > reference at all. Admit that its all about 'information resources' > and give up on this crap about resources being anything in the > universe. > > (3) In the semantics document, point out how amazingly convenient and > natural it is to have a URI refer to whatever it accesses, (so we can > just talk about 'identifying'), but ... > (4) ... since we are now talking about reference, and we might want > to use URIs to refer to inaccessible things, we need to handle this > somehow, which leads to the 303-redirect recommendation. > > Pat > > -- ______________________________ Michael K. Bergman Web Scientist 380 Knowling Drive Coralville, IA 52241 mailto:mike@mkbergman.com 319.339.0110 skype:michaelkbergman http://mkbergman.com ______________________________
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 20:40:42 UTC