- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:59:23 +0300
- To: ext Eric Hellman <eric@openly.com>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>
I can appreciate the political/social issues you describe. At the very least, I would hope to see a URIQA server (or comparable) hosted at whatever Web server might be set up to serve information about info URI registrants and their terms. I.e., if one cannot have MGET http://ddc.some.root.domain/... HTTP/1.1 at least it would be a great service to the SW to have GET http://some.root.domain/URIQA?uri=info:ddc/... HTTP/1.1 So that precise descriptions of these important resources can be easily obtained by SW agents. Cheers, Patrick On 2003-10-01 19:05, "ext Eric Hellman" <eric@openly.com> wrote: > Let me try to articulate one of the unspoken reasons in favor of the > "info:" scheme with respect to the "http://some.root.domain/" > approach. > > I think there is no argument that the http-some-domain approach has > the great technical advantage over info that it has a built-in > mechanism for retrieving resources and descriptions. What this list > may not immediately recognize is that this technical advantage can, > in many situations, be a great political disadvantage. > > In general, technological barriers are easily surmounted by > technologist, but political barriers can be genuinely hard. By that I > mean that getting people to agree on things (peacefully) is not > easily arrived at by technological means. > > The technical ability to dereference an http URI results in a grant > of power to the owner of some-domain by anyone who uses some-domain > URI's. The practical effect is that real people, real organizations, > and real communities are less willing to go along with the use of > some-domain uri's to reference resources. Regardless of how much the > owner of some-domain is trusted, there is a natural reluctance to > delegate the power to de-reference. Potential users might try to > impose specific dereferencing policies on the some-domain owner (for > example by legal means) that might be objectionable to other users of > the some-domain authority. > > The info scheme explicitly has no dereferencing capability. The lack > of this ability makes it easier to get people and organizations to > agree to use these uri's, and is in fact its signal advantage. > > At the same time, there is absolutely nothing to stop the > proliferation of "info" dereferencing services. Given that hundreds > of libraries have already installed OpenURL "dereferencing services" > (such as our product, 1Cate (http://www.openly.com/1cate/) and others > such as SFX, LinkFinderPlus, O-link, LinkSource, Sirsi Resolver, > etc., etc.) which will rapidly add support for info uri's packaged > in http urls, it seems likely that means for obtaining semantic web > descriptions for info uri over http will be quickly supplied by > market forces. > > To sum up, with regard to the info scheme, less is more. > > Eric > > > At 3:06 PM +0300 10/1/03, Patrick Stickler wrote: >> On 2003-10-01 14:45, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> >>> While having some sympathy with Patrick here, I note that a new scheme that >>> is URIs not URLs neatly sidesteps the car/document problems. >> >> Which is simply a problem that must be solved, if the Web >> and SW are to progress... >> >> The tradeoff, having no easy means to obtain representations/descriptions >> of resources denoted by info URIs is IMO far greater a loss. >> >> Particularly when the resources denoted are fundamental terms >> used broadly in the classification of resources -- where the ability >> to easily obtain schema based descriptions of those terms for >> inference and other operations is a big win for applications. >> >>> An info URI identifies a concept not a document about that concept. >>> A similar http URL would be taken as identifying either or both depending >>> on who you talk to. >> >> True. But one of them would be wrong ;-) >> >> And that's why I've been working hard on URIQA, so that such >> disagreements can be easily resolves by asking the web authority >> for an authoritative description of the denoted resource, which >> (hopefully) will include some rdf:type assertions. >> >> Rather than publish an insulated info: URI, an http: URI could >> be used and precise descriptions of the denoted resources published >> on the appropriate servers. E.g. >> >> MGET http://lccn.some.root.domain/2002022641 HTTP/1.1 >> >> where the server lccn.some.root.domain is managed by whomever >> is responsible for managing the LCCN namespace, and a request >> such as above would return RDF which explicitly defines the >> resource denoted by that URI. >> >> Thus, the owners of the namespace themselves can *still* avoid the >> document/car problem by employing a URIQA enlightened server >> which provides precise descriptions of the resources denoted, >> thus making it clear precisely what kind of resource it is. >> >> A new URI scheme that is not dereferencable is, IMO, a step >> backwards (or at best sideways), not forwards. >> >> It's the proverbial "hiding your light under a bushel basket". >> HTTP + URIQA offer a great table. Why not use it. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Patrick >> >> >>> >>> Jeremy >>> >>> Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) wrote: >>> >>>>> Why define and manage the URI space outside the scope of the core Web >>>>> and SW machinery? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Patrick: >>>> >>>> I have to query the question you put above. IMO the "info" URI scheme fits >>>> full square within the core Web and SW machinery as articulated in the >>>> latest Web Architecture Draft: >>>> >>>> Architecture of the World Wide Web >>>> W3C Working Draft 27 June 2003 >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ >>>> >>>> The domain of URI is more extensive than HTTP alone. I would >>>> assert that the >>>> actual domain of URI is the Web. >>> >>> >>> >
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 02:59:35 UTC