- From: Golda Velez <w3@webglimpse.org>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 00:24:10 -0700
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On Saturday 09 June 2007 20:08, Jon Hanna wrote: > Since this matter was unsettled, and since I didn't get (and still don't > get which is the enlightenment I'm hoping to acheive here) why a URI > identifying myself couldn't return a representation For what its worth - I think returning a representation would be ok, but for a URI identifying a non-document the representation is not what the URI is referring to, which is what makes it weird. I think we need some way to specify a domain, protocol or some special pattern or type of URI that is for identifying abstract concepts, concrete objects (ie people), and other non-documents. It would be nice if we could get the info:// folks to make that protocol available & extensible for the purpose, but if that's unlikely a convention like http://mydomain.com/w2.0/people/JoeBrown http://somedomain.com/w2.0/mysubjects/Cards/Poker/DeucesWild could serve, or many others. This convention, that is the /w2.0/ following the domain, would simply mean "This URI is attempting to represent a semantic point, it may or may not return a representation". Maybe I'm totally off the mark here, but I think some way shape or form it would be good to separate the ability to pinpoint a concept from the requirement to represent it. --Golda On Saturday 09 June 2007 20:08, Jon Hanna wrote: > > M. David Peterson wrote: > >> No. It cannot identify both a document and a person. > > > > Why? Are you suggesting that what I have done -- i.e. used a domain I > > presently maintain control over to provide information embedded into the > > same document intended to serve different purposes, and do so quite > > legitamatelly and successfully -- is in fact, wrong? If yes, how so? > > It works and works well. Nothing has been broken as a result, and the > > same URI had identified both a document and a person. > > It makes sense to say that a URI cannot identify both a person and a > document or else it's failing to identify anything (or is at best a > partial identifier and we need a mechanism for defining its scope). > > What I still don't get is why anything has to identify the document(s). > If you really care to talk about the document(s) themselves you could > *then* have a URI for them and another for yourself. If I'm > dereferencing a URI that I have been informed identifies you I'm doing > so because I have an interest in you and wish to obtain information > about you - which receiving said documents does. I'm not going to be > interested in the web page in and of itself, only in you. > > Now, some time ago (when this question seemed still unsettled) I defined > <http://www.hackcraft.net/jon/> as identifying myself. > > Since this matter was unsettled, and since I didn't get (and still don't > get which is the enlightenment I'm hoping to acheive here) why a URI > identifying myself couldn't return a representation I have the following: > > URI Resource Representation > http://.../jon/ Me text/html > OR > application/xhtml+xml > OR > application/rdf+xml > > Now, at some point I'll come to update that website (maybe, I'm very lax > about it) and in light of the above being incorrect I'll have: > > URI Resource Representation > http://.../jon/ Me 303 -> > > http://.../jon/doc Implementation text/html > artefact I don't OR > care about application/xhtml+xml > OR > application/rdf+xml > > If I should care to say something about a resource that exists to hold a > description of me then I would want it to have its own URI. I don't > though, it exists purely to describe me. And I can't see why it need > exist at all. > > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Golda Velez 520-440-1420 http://goldavelez.com what I do: Tucson Superblog http://btucson.com Search software http://webglimpse.net Web hosting http://iwhome.com "Help organize the world - index your own corner of the web!"
Received on Sunday, 10 June 2007 07:10:38 UTC