Re: Namespaces wihtout "#" Was: Few CWM Bugs

[...]
> What you are looking for is a header field that defines the
> relationship between representation and resource in a manner
> that is simple to understand and relatively standard.

Yes, you're right... my ideas did not come out at all well in my
previous email, so allow me to try again [1].

Using the RFC 2616 wording, a resource corresponds to a set of
entities over time. Once again, the arguement is that it's difficult
to set out the nature of the correspondance, and indeed, whether or
not some types of correspondance are ever allowed. For example, some
guy recently wanted to have a URI that identifies the concept of his
copy of "Weaving The Web"; he used
"http://logicerror.com/myWeavingTheWeb". TimBL seems to argue (and
this is only my interpretation) that you can never say "this is a
representation of the concept of my copy of 'Weaving The Web'",
because there is no machinery in HTTP for saying "this is material
*about* what you are looking for".

Whatever the case, it is clear that it is difficult for an author to
define the relationship. My HTTP-Header suggestion, which should be
taken cum_grano_salis (think in terms of barrels of salt), was an
attempt at being able to say explicitly, in the header, "this is stuff
about the abstract resource described in this representation", rather
than "this is stuff which corresponds closely to the resource, a
thread of publications". Of course, in reality, there are not two
discrete states such as these (well, you could argue that we could
provide such a taxonomy, but you certainly wouldn't label them as I
did), and so finely grained metadata such as RDF would need to be
used.

Then we have Sandro's work to consider:-

[[[
Can an object be both a Web Page and a Person? [...] I think the
answer is it can. For a predicate it's just like having two functions
by the same name (and in the same scope) which are disambiguated by
their type signatures or For a subject/object, it's like implementing
multiple interfaces, which works as long as the interface element
names are different.
]]] - http://www.w3.org/2001/03/identification-problem/clever

There was also some discussion on RDF IG a short while ago about
adding RDF to HTTP-Headers, although then we were talking about
content types, rather than the nature of the resource. It's all in:-

http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2001-10-25.txt

Russel O'Connor asked about using HTTP headers with RDF for digital
signatures:-

[[[
It would be nice if there were a standard way of putting RDF in HTTP
headers, and create secure digital signatures.
]]] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-talk/2001MarApr/0058

CC/PP also uses RDF-in-headers:-

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/01/31/ccpp.html

So whilst we're thinking now in a more grandoise scale, this is
certainly not a new set of ideas. It would be nice if we could figure
something out.

Cheers,

[1] Read: back-pedal :-)

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .

Received on Monday, 26 November 2001 10:43:29 UTC