RE: Yorick Wilks on Semantic Web & httpRange-14

> You are not using URIs but strings, so you can't understand what is going on.

OK, you want me to use a URI, by which I assume you mean the thing defined by RFC 3986.

> Here, instead try finding out what the meaning of http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me 
> is. 

 http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me  as a URI has a well-defined
meaning in most contexts, basically:

  Connect to host bblfish.net using the http protocol on port 80, and
  communicate with it using the path "/people/henry/card".  If you are
  GET-ing something, then take the results of an HTTP GET; based
  on the content-type of the entity that returns from a 200, and following
 definition of the media type to focus on the results of interpreting
 "me" as a fragment.
 
That's about all you can get from it being a "URI" and not just some string
like "slithy toves".   If some other context, protocol,
document format, environment wants to use it for more than that,
then it's up to that context to define how it applies to that context.

 I use xmlns=" http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me" in an XML
document, XML provides another context, the URI is being used
as a namespace name. 

> I would suggest writing out a foaf profile and you'll soon enough see how it
> works. You can add me as foaf:knows . If you don't know what foaf:knows means, then
> just dereference it. It's full url is http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows

Ooops, sorry, I got all this stuff but then my internet connection went down.
Does that mean I have to stop processing?  Ooops, sorry, xmlns.com seems 
to have been hijacked... does the semantic web stop working?

> That it works is as clear as day to anyone using the linked data version of the semantic
> web. But like all technical objects they have to be used to see how they work. 

Since we're still trying to discover what you mean by "it", the assertion
that "it works"  isn't "clear as day".


I asked:
> What is the "efficient, scalable" way in which A, B and C communicate
> in order to all agree to use D's definition? How is their agreement
> "easy" ? I mean, if they could agree to use D's definition, why can't
> they agree to use A's definition instead? Or B's? 

Didn't see any reply.

> I don't see any use cases at all in 
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/UriDefinitionDiscoveryProtocol
> so it's hard for me to understand what problem you think you are solving with it.

Still looking for a use case.

Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 18:06:01 UTC