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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 13:38:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4A119D2A.3020202@openlinksw.com>
To: Sherman Monroe <sdmonroe@gmail.com>
CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
Sherman Monroe wrote:
> David wrote:
>>     [...] For example, when I search for Microsoft on Google, the
>>     first result not only IS what I want, but also LOOKs like what I
>>     want. I can make the decision to click on it within maybe 1 or 2
>>     seconds. The URL "www.microsoft.com <http://www.microsoft.com>"
>>     in that search result is perhaps the most convincing element, as
>>     I know only *the* Microsoft can possibly own that domain. (This
>>     will be a challenge for any SW search engine, because no-one can
>>     own any URI, and so, seeing a URI alone means pretty much
>>     nothing. That's one of the main differences between URL and URI,
>>     which is usually swept under the rug.) 
> David,
> I agree with Tim that we can build on the HTTP infrastructure to 
> expose the ownership of URIs. To me, ownership of a URI (if it is a 
> HTTP-based URI) means it is owned by the people who control the page 
> at that URI. So for a Wikipedia URL, the owners are the folks that 
> maintain that page.
Think: URI Space or Data Space. Using or minting URIs in the Linked Data 
realm implies the "authority" aspect is functional (which ultimately 
contributes to resolution when de-referencing). A URI is more than its 
constituent literals (which are inherently superficial).
> I also think that owning a URI in the semantic web has about as much 
> value as owning your name in real life. In otherwords, I can't control 
> what statements people make about me in real life. Futhermore, as a 
> person looking for info about a thing, I may not necessarily be 
> interested in what the thing says about itself (e.g. I need 
> description/rating/reviews of a plumber for due diligence purposes). 
> It's valuable in WWW to own a URL because you can control what a 
> person sees when they go to it, but in URI, you can't control what 
> folks see when they browse it's linked data.
Yes, so apropos Tim's comments above:

You have a Name and people "refer to you" by that Name. If they want to 
give you a *handshake* (in person), then they need the address (URL 
aspect of HTTP URI) of the physical embodiment (a negotiated 
representation) associated with your Name.
>     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/ ?) .  
> A very plausible idea. My question is though, which has the most 
> authority, the owner of the URI, or the 'crowd' using it? I tend to 
> think that the most trusted statements come from the folks referencing 
> it (I guess this is the logic behind Google's algorithms).
Who has the most authority over "Sherman Monroe", and why? Who 
determines what manifestation receives the *handshake* from me based on 
the Name: "Sherman Monroe" ? In real life, I will disambiguate using a 
combination of Type and Properties of the Entity Named: "Sherman 
Monroe", so I know I am shaking hands with whom I know to be Named: 
"Sherman Monroe".

>     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.  
> Exactly, and HTTP-based authority is definitely belongs in that system 
> of ownership, but as I stated, there is something to be mentioned 
> about 'the crowd' being able to be authorities of URIs also.
Remember your Name, and the fact that it is distinct from your physical 
manifestation (which is also inherently mobile) .

Entity Type and Entity Properties enable us all to Reason about Things 
that have Names in a Linked Data graph. This is also why OWL is 
ultimately important to Linked Data.  My Agent will one day shake your 
Agent's hands instead of us doing it in person, with the same degree of 
accuracy :-)

> -sherman



Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 17:39:28 UTC

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