- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:05:57 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, public-uri-cg@w3.org
On Saturday, Apr 5, 2003, at 05:18 US/Eastern, Graham Klyne wrote: > <aside> > I think there has long been a tension that URIs serve (at least two) > different masters: in the web architecture (wherein the concept > originated), as a framework for universal identification, but within > the IETF (who "own" the specification) I sense a broad view that URIs > are some kind of glorified address. For many purposes, these are > reconcilable views, but when issues like this come up one sees the > fault lines emerge. > </aside> Yes, that is well put. This has been a certain tension all along. While the URI spec's syntax and the HTT protocols allowable message sequences have been indeed envelope within the IETF, the web philosophy was not understood by everyone concerned. To take one example, when the web architecture called for a universal identifier space, and wanted to grandfather in Gopher servers, some folks wanted to keep the ":" hierarchical separator in the gopher URI, even though the web architecture called for standardization on "/" to make relative URIs work. In essence, while the web architecture was a more encompassing one, but some Gopher users didn't see any need to have to fit in with it. And of course they didn't have to. Now, we have the Semantic Web and the World Wide Web as it is. The Semantc Web is a user of the WWW in one way, in that it uses the web to put its document in. However, when it comes to the languages, the Semantic Web languages are more encompassing, in that RDF models real things and abstract concepts, and includes documents messages as special cases. So while URI users who work in a world of documents feel they have the right not to be encompassed by something they don't [think they] need. This is behind some of the discussions of "Resource" and so on. In fact, web architecture and semantic web architecture can be integrated fairly seamlessly , with a bit of understanding on each side. I think it needs a formal description, so that we don't rely on english terms. Tim
Received on Monday, 7 April 2003 15:05:33 UTC