- 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>
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.... -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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