W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Owning URIs (Was: Yet Another LOD cloud browser)

From: Sherman Monroe <sdmonroe@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 11:32:50 -0500
Message-ID: <e23f467e0905180932r19da02c3o7a6d760ca0f20fba@mail.gmail.com>
To: Li Ding <dingl@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, David Huynh <dfhuynh@alum.mit.edu>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org

We're here man, we're here. (*does finger-to-eye gesture*).


On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Li Ding <dingl@cs.rpi.edu> wrote:

> It might be better to say owning the description of an URI.
> The Semantic Web allows "anyone can say anything anywhere", so we
> cannot stop people adding more descriptions to a URI.  As seen in
> Swoogle Term search, many URIs have been defined by many places: the
> "official address' indicated by the http namespace of a URI may carry
> less description than other sites,  some even being defined as both
> class and property.
> It is important to track the ownership (further provenance) of the
> description of URI. we may want to know who published the definition,
> and where the definition is copied from. Being able to connect RDF
> triples with authors is an important step towards the social semantic
> web.
> In web 2.0 era, there may not be just one way to track the ownership.
> While we can traditionally buy domain name and own the URI,  people
> can collaborate on semantic wiki, for example, to define certain URI.
> In Web 2.0 context, the ownership is recorded in semantic annotation
> rather and hardwired in the namespace.  One good example is the
> wikipedia: I was using merrian-webster online dictionary 10 years ago,
> but now I'm using google's definition link or wikipedia for term
> definition. Of course, some one also take advantage of Wikipedia's
> credibility to do spam or put up wrong stuff, but that is more a
> matter to be addressed by reputation system.
> Li
> >
> > I had to pick up in "no-one can own any URI".
> > First of all, terms:  URL is not really a term in the architecture of the
> > WWW.  I find it best to use "URI".  "URL" does occur in the browser UI,
> but
> > in the specs it has been used for various things, often a derogatory term
> > for a URI which might change. How are you using it here? To mean the URI
> of
> > a web page?
> > To mean an " http:"  URI?  If not, then why are you dealing with URIs
> which
> > are not HTTP URIs (tch, tch! :-)?  If so, then why don't you think these
> > HTTP URIs in the semantic web are owned?
> > Why can't the semantic web track 'whois' information of domain ownership,
> > and maybe even SLL certificate information, of sites and be aware of the
> > social relationships, and use them intelligently? (perhaps more safely
> than
> > a human who will be confused by
> > http://www.microsoft.com.1000ripyouoff.crime/ ?) .  It is true that the
> > delegation of information within a site is not typically made explicit
> > (though it could be with site metadata).  But there is in general a
> system
> > of ownership of URIs, it seems to me, and it is important on the SW in
> the
> > social processes by which different groups get to define what different
> > terms mean.  So "no-one can own any URI" set off a red flag for me.
> > Tim
> >
> --
> Li Ding
> http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~dingl/ <http://www.cs.rpi.edu/%7Edingl/>



I pray that you may prosper in all things and be healthy, even as your soul
(3 John 1:2)
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 16:33:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:12 UTC