- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 01:52:50 -0500 (EST)
- To: patrick.stickler@nokia.com (Patrick Stickler)
- Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com (URN), uri@w3.org (URI)
> The problem is that folks needing to talk about non-digital resources > have been so 'http:' URL saturated that they started using them > out of habit, or (fairly enough) not having much else to use, and > then IMO folks started trying to re-define what URLs are for in > order to justify this (mis)use. Well I'm not going into that again, but at least we've boiled down your argument. 8-) > > and the relationship > > between http://foo.com/freds_car/ and this other URI should be > > authoritatively established with HTTP's Content-Location header. > > A content header is not a digital-resource, it is part of the > interchange protocol which describes to the recieving application > what the content is -- how can you describe empty content? It's an assertion, like any other on the Semantic Web, except in RFC 822 format rather than RDF. Anyhow, my general attitude towards your drafts are that it's a good idea to be able to know things about resources and the relationships between them. You appear to want to put at least some of this information into the URI scheme (e.g. HRNs, where the existence of one resource implies the existence of other resources), whereas I would prefer that *all* of these relationships were made explicit with the mechanisms provided by the Semantic Web, and that the identifiers themselves remain entirely opaque. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 01:51:35 UTC