RE: uri, urn and info

From : Weibel,Stu < weibel@oclc.org >
Date : Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:37:27 -0400
Message-ID : 
<90D12689EF7A0543AB11426D75D6ABC507165531@oa4-server.oa.oclc.org>
To :uri@w3.org 
Patrick Stickler writes, in part:

> 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.

It is not at all clear to me why uncoupling identity and resolution in any
way hinders the web, semantic or otherwise.  Quite the contrary.

As Eric Hellman pointed out:

> ...the absence of inherent dereference is a selling point to large market
segments."

This is particularly true in the many cases where there is no expectation of
resolution - the declaration of terminologies.  It is precisely the broad
availability and use of such terminologies in the Web that will make it
possible to achieve the 'semantic' bit.

Establishing and maintaining an http/DNS identifier for each concept in such
a vocabulary is one means of making them available, but will simply not
happen widely. Few of the organizations that manage such vocabularies
(LCCNs, Dewey numbers, many others) have any incentive or business case to
'webulate' them. 

    I find that hard to agree with. All of the mentioned organizations
    invest alot of money in maintaining web sites with the express
    purpose of facilitating and promoting the use of their term sets.

    Having resolvable URI denotation that can be dereferenced to an
    explicit definition of each term seems like a no-brainer to me,
    and a solution that will serve the users of those term sets
    more than enough to justify the minimal effort needed to do it.
 
But users cannot realize their value in the digital domain
unless they can be declared and identified in a consistent way.

The INFO URI proposal affords a straightforward mechanism to support
declarations of such namespaces, requiring no additional effort beyond the
normal maintenance of the vocabulary (except the initial registration act).

    And there's no reason why that consistent way can't be based
    on http: URIs, even if the term set owners choose not to provide
    any resolution for them.

    I.e., the functionality/utility of an http: URI is a superset of
    the functionality of the analogous info: URI. There is nothing that
    the info: URI scheme offers that the http: URI scheme does not provide,
    yet there is much that the http: URI scheme offers that the info:
    scheme does not provide and which is IMO very important for the SW.

    Patrick


stu

Stuart Weibel
Senior Research Scientist
OCLC Office of Research
+1 614 764 6081 weibel@oclc.org

Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2003 02:48:14 UTC