- From: Peter C Davis <peter.davis@neustar.biz>
- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:55:56 -0400
- To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, uri@w3.org
Garret Wilson wrote: > Patrick Stickler wrote: > >> But when all one has is a single URI, how do you find out *where* >> authoritative descriptive metadata resides, if that URI is not >> meaningful to HTTP? That's the problem. If all you have is >> uri:foo:blargh how do you know where to go for information about >> the thing denoted by that URI, and how do you know that the information >> you find is authoritative? And even if you manage to work out a >> solution, will that solution scale globally? > > > Fine---there needs to be a standard solution for finding out "where > authoritative descriptive metadata resides." We can all agree that > this is a problem. So? Actually, there is a proposal: http://www.projectliberty.org/specs/draft-lib-arch-metadata-v1.0-08.pdf which uses the DNS and DDDS (http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3401.txt), which solves this in part. In particular URIs whose naming authority part is domain-based and a special case for the URN scheme. While the approached defined was intended to solve more specific issues, it can be made more generalized. It is scheme and protocol independant. Whether you choose to use HTTP, SMTP, FTP or whatever. It also allows for multiple representations of metadata, so you describe the URI in multiple formats. It would, IMO, be an error to assume that for a given resource, you may only gt *one* metadata document. --- peterd
Received on Friday, 3 October 2003 02:56:13 UTC