W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2016

Re: xsd:anyURI - was: HTTPS and the Semantic Web

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 18:13:20 +0200
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <F94B56E9-D4A1-4676-8B92-BFAFBA3EB40D@bblfish.net>
To: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>

> On 21 May 2016, at 17:40, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de> wrote:
> Hello Henry,
> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 04:18:47PM +0200, Henry Story wrote:
>> We should see this large movement as an opportunity to fix a lot of other problems that have come
>> up in Linked Data. For example it could allow us to move away from 303 redirects to hash urls that are much 
>> more efficient, and finally put that old discussion to rest.
> Ha! Let the games begin! :-)
> Seriously, I cannot believe we are having this discussion. The day that that "a"
> in Turtle/SPARQL represents https://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type
> instead of http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type will be the day
> when RDF breaks. Leave it as it is.

clearly some RDF URLS are so widely documented and deployed that these meanings 
have to a certain extend escaped from the definition placed at their location. 
As a result they won't gain much in security by having https urls. This would
be the case for many major w3c rdf and owl URLS. So I don't think there is really
a need to move those URLs over.

> All those URI changing fixes to get rid of technical debt will mean a lot of 
> pain for a lot of people - unless you can come up with a scheme where those 
> fixes are handled transparently by the software. I am not talking of reasoners
> here.

You mean like using redirects? That would allow ontologies to be moved to secure 
namespaces without I think changing the old URLs.

I think there are ways of doing these redirects securely. I have not looked at that 
carefully. Anyone?

> A large fraction of the users don't use them because they are a PITA.
> RDF should stay accessible for people who are not top of the range and use 
> hard-coded URIs in their code.

yes, there will be quite a long time to live for old well known http URLs. On the
other hand for people building less well known vocabs who want to move to more
secure vocabs you'll need some "reasoning type solution" like the one we're starting 
to propose. In any case that will be needed for changing ontologies, and overcomeing
mistakes, etc... So there is good reason to formalise vocabulary transitions, so that
these can be automated.

> Maybe we can come up with a completely new RDF where "Cool URIs don't change"
> is enforced technically? ;-)

Things change. "Cool URIs' don't change" is of motto so that people think before they
change URIs, because of the cost involved which we are just discussin.
It's not a statement about the impossibility to make mistakes.


> Regards,
> Michael Brunnbauer
> -- 
> ++  Michael Brunnbauer
> ++  netEstate GmbH
> ++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
> ++  81379 München
> ++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
> ++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 
> ++  E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
> ++  http://www.netestate.de/
> ++
> ++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
> ++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
> ++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
> ++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2016 16:13:51 UTC

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