W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2006

Re: URI's for processes, stocks, file hashes, UPC's, etc..

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:04:32 -0500
Message-Id: <12B8FA95-0114-4990-8253-86E674F51BF2@nokia.com>
Cc: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "'Stan James'" <sjames@uni-osnabrueck.de>, <uri@w3.org>
To: <pepper@ontopia.net>


On Sep 19, 2006, at 08:36, ext Steve Pepper wrote:

>
> * Noah Mendelsohn
> |
> | Steve Pepper writes:
> |
> | > One important consideration (if this really *is* to be an open
> | > standard) is that your users should be able to figure out which
> | > "subject" (web page, stock, product, service, etc.) the URI is
> | > intended to denote, without necessarily having to use your  
> service.
> | > In other words: given an URI used as an "identifier" for an
> | > arbitrary subject, it should be easy to discover what that  
> subject is.
> |
> | Well, I think you're being a bit quick in suggesting that as a  
> design
> | point.  In fact, there's a lot of emphasis on the Web on the  
> opacity of
> | URIs.  See [1] for an early exposition of this principle by Tim
> | Berners-Lee, and "The Architecture of the World Wide Web" [2] for  
> another
> | explanation. Indeed, the TAG is has nearly wrapped up publication  
> of a
> | finding devoted entirely to what you should or should not infer  
> about a
> | resource from inspection of its URI.  The draft finding is The  
> Use of
> | Metadata in URIs [3].  I suggest that those interested in the  
> suggestion
> | above consult all of these resources, as this is a topic that's been
> | carefully considered as the Web has evolved.
>
> I agree with you 100%, so I guess my posting wasn't clear enough :-)
>
> My point was *not* that it should be possible to inspect the URI  
> and figure
> out what the subject is, but rather that the URI should *resolve* to
> something that can be inspected. This is entirely in accordance  
> with the Web
> architecture and it is the key principle behind the PRI proposal.

FWIW, this is the exact problem/need that URIQA was designed to address.

C.f.  http://sw.nokia.com/uriqa/URIQA.html

(Hi, Steve ;-)

Patrick


>
> | Also, I strongly concur with Mark Baker's suggestion to use http- 
> scheme
> | URIs to solve the problem that is the subject of this thread.
>
> This was also my main point (along with the recommendation that the  
> URI
> should resolve to something useful).
>
> There is another TAG finding underway that is relevant in this  
> connection
> [1]. Its key message could (almost) be summarized as "New URI schemes
> considered harmful: use HTTP URIs".
>
> Steve
>
> [1] URNs, Namespaces and Registries
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 15:05:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:10 UTC