- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:11:12 +0200
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: John Black <JohnBlack@kashori.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > > On 2007-06 -25, at 11:00, John Black wrote: >> [...] But surely a URI is an information resource in the same way that >> a blog post is and so it can be represented by a web page the same way >> a blog post is represented by the web page you get through HTTP. >> >> Now my FOAF URI is this http://kashori.com/JohnBlack/foaf.rdf#jpb. As >> a URI, it is an information resource, namely a string of characters >> conforming to rfc3986. > > Well, that is not how Information Resource is used in the web > Architecture. An Information Resource conveys information, and in the > web architecture it can severl representations, but any one of them must > have a content-type (and possibly other metadata) as well as a string > of bits. I'd really like to see a pretty formal spec for "InformationResource". There are plenty of corner cases to flush out. On my system, the URI file:///Users/danbri/.cpan/sources/MIRRORED.BY deref'd in Firefox gives me a textual document containing metadata about the Perl CPAN system. Is that URI the name of an information resource? How about: data:,A%20brief%20note (no obvious way to get content-type, unless the data: URI scheme defines a default)  (more obvious content-type in there ... but its scheme specific...) > Oh, Yes you do, as a literal string is not an information resource. It's not? http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources seems a little more permissive. The requirement that "information resources" representations must come with a content-type seems a bit strict. If something doesn't tell you the content-type, does the resource stop being informational? Dan
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 00:11:22 UTC