W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2003

RE: uri, urn and info

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:54:00 +0000
To: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>, "ext Eric Hellman" <eric@openly.com>, P atrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <nVSPxrp0zrfM.qmvPvR8v@mail.nokia.com>

_____________Original message ____________
Subject:	RE: uri, urn and info
Sender:	ext Eric Hellman <eric@openly.com>
Date:		Thu,  9 Oct 2003 08:29:58 +0000

for example


	(the persistence issue aside, for the moment)

	Here is a prime example of why an http: URI
	would be a far more useful means of denotation
	than an info: URI.
	If the above were rather, e.g.


	Then web users could (potentially) obtain
	a representation of the current state of the TWX
	ticker simply by dereferencing it (with probable
	redirection from ticker.info.niso.org to a NYSE
	server) without any change to the present,
	globally deployed web infrastructure.

	That doesn't mean the URI *has* to resolve to
	anything, but deciding whether it does, and if
	so, to what, is not affected by the URI itself. 
	And if decided at first to provide no representations,
	a change to that decision has no impact on either
	its denotation or its non-resolvable usage to date.

	Likewise, SW agents could (potentially) obtain
	(by means of a standardised solution such as URIQA)
	an authoritative, formal, RDF description of the
	denoted resource, which could include the state
	of the ticker expressed precisely, suitable for
	inference engines to e.g. deduce whether one
	should buy or sell ;-)

	But "hiding" the denoted resource behind an info:
	URI (even if it can eventually be "found" via ad hoc
	resolution schemes)  is hindering, not helping, the 
	web and SW.


Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 01:53:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:44 UTC