- From: Rick Murphy <rick@rickmurphy.org>
- Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:35:26 -0400
- To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
- CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >> On Oct 4, 2008, at 2:46 AM, paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Cool thanks >>> >>> it renders well in firefox without extension >>> but I am not sure understand how one uri can be viewed both as rdf >>> source and html >> It is resolved by 'content negotiation', a similar technique used for >> example to decide which language version you get of a multi-language- >> edition newspaper. To regard these editions as a single resource is >> considered good Web practice according to the W3C Architectural >> guidelines, but the extension of this to the HTML/RDF distinction is >> currently more controversial. So this might be good practice, >> depending on how the current debates about RDF and content negotiation >> finally settle out. In the meantime one should probably treat it as >> provisionally good practice, or maybe experimental good practice. > > Ahem. > > There is not a whiff of content negotiation, which I don't like > because it makes it confusing to figure out what resource the URI > names. I do not consider using content negotiation good practice, even > provisionally. Content negotiation can be an effective practice given a model theoretic semantics based on pragmaticism. Given that we can't constrain behavior on the web, the key point is to align model theory and practice. I certainly defer to Pat on this issue, but I believe the recent developments in linked data, specifically the introduction of information and non-information resources, imply a need to update the current RDF model theory to reflect a vocabulary that differentiates things, things in the world and references to things in the world. Pragamticism and content negotiation could come later, like after semiotics. > The specific series of events that happens when the browser does a get > of http://purl.obofoundry.org/obo/OBI_0000225 snip ... > For those that might think that this looks like a lot of traffic to > generate the page, I'll remind that there are a variety of ways that > this same information can be retrieved much more efficiently, for > example the whole OBI OWL file > (http://purl.obofoundry.org/obo/obi.owl), or as a query against the > Neurocommons triple store at http://sparql.neurocommons.org/ . Information and non-information resources can be effectively differentiated without network traffic. Would you mind explaining how you believe the introduction of network traffic better differentiate information and non-information resources ? > For the > single dereference of a citable name, we consider it more important > that we try as best possible to not confuse what the URI denotes, and > to have systems in place that reduce as much as possible the chance > that there be incentive to give another name (URI) for the same > entity. So how does network traffic clarify what the URI denotes ? You seem to be saying that linked data implies a disincentive for introducing new representations, but this requires that consumers of representations standardize their interpretation. I'm a congregationalist which I guess is a bit left of Unitarian these days. I suggest our understanding of semantics today is not sufficiently mature to introduce disincentives into web architecture in an attempt to achieve the web's goals. > -Alan > > > >> Pat >> >>> >>> or do we have more than one uri for the same resource? if so, is that >>> legal/good practice? >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> PDM >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Alan Ruttenberg >>> <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Whoops, typo: That should be: http://purl.obofoundry.org/obo/OBI_0000225 >>>> Thanks for noticing! >>>> Note that if you view source, you will see RDF rather than HTML. The >>>> HTML is browser only, generated by a stylesheet instruction. >>>> -Alan >>>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 3:19 AM, <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> - http://purl.obofoundry.org/obo/OBO_0000225 - an example of what >>>>>> we >>>>>> think should be a typical response for an ontology term >>>>> Alan, when click on that url with firefox i get redirected to >>>>> http://www.berkeleybop.org/ontologies/OBO_0000225 >>>>> >>>>> and see 'object not found' >>>>> is this the response to be expecting, or suggesting should be >>>>> expected? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --PDM Best Wishes, Rick blog: http://phaneron.rickmurphy.org web: http://www.rickmurphy.org phone: 703.201.9129
Received on Sunday, 5 October 2008 18:39:41 UTC