W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2000

Re: theory and practice (Re: URIs for Physical Items)

From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:35:30 -0500
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Cc: "'uri@w3.org'" <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20001029183529.C10207@bailey.dscga.com>
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 06:34:29PM -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> At 06:09 PM 10/29/00 -0500, Michael Mealling wrote:
> >Correct. It _can_ be used to find out some minimal types of information
> >about novel or unsupported URIs but even then its won't allow an application
> >to completely duplicate that URIs features. For example, the URI Resolution
> >application could tell you things about a URI but, unless you have access
> >to the NNTP protocol to be able to make use of the 'news:' URI scheme,
> >it won't do you much good beyond telling you that you do indeed need
> >the NNTP library in order to get any namespace specific functionality out
> of it.
> Agreed - but even such minimal information makes intervention, whether
> human or machine, much more possible.

That's mostly the point. The URI Resolution mechanisms were always meant
to be a fallback/interoperability tool...

> In cases where more information is available, it should make automation
> much easier.  Working from nothing, however, is pretty difficult.

IMHO, we just need to start working on an RDF vocabulary for URI<->Resource
relationships and then its just deployment issues....


Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions	|          www.lp.org          |  michaelm@netsol.com
Received on Sunday, 29 October 2000 18:45:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:02 UTC