- From: Kevin Smathers <ks@micky.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:22:22 -0800
- To: "Butler, Mark" <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, karger@theory.lcs.mit.edu
- Cc: SIMILE public list <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>
Hi David, > -----Original Message----- > From: David R. Karger [mailto:karger@theory.lcs.mit.edu] > Sent: 04 April 2003 06:09 > To: mick.bass@hp.com; Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com > Subject: notes on use cases [...] > 3.2.7 > > Two issues seem scrambled here. One is "how are things named" and the > obvious answer is "URIs". A separate one is "Should there be > canonical URIs that can be deduced from what you are looking for"? I > believe the answer to the second is no. URIs should be opaque (for > example, random to avoid collisions). The process of "figuring out > the right URI for something" is a type of search/retrieval problem. > Instead of squeezing this search/retreival into a specialized "figure > out the URL" task, incorporate it in the standard search framework. > Any information used to define a canonical URL can instead be used as > metadata on the object, and any knowledge of how to construct the URL > can then be turned into a specification of its metadata. > Randomness avoids collision? I would say rather that federation avoids collision, randomness only invites it. In any case, I wasn't trying to describe a system of URL naming which incorporates a query into the name, eg: http://google.com/search?q=switch+stoned+chicks&btnI=FeelingLucky http://www.apple.com/switch/ads/ellenfeiss.html Rather I intended the description of naming to read as a system for identifying resources smaller than the atomic document. The URL remains the same, there just needs to be a way of interpreting additional constraints on the content within that URL. I think this is analogous to the identification of a ViewPart to extract a particular view of an object within Haystack (do I remember a SongPreview10Seconds View Part, or something similar?). In this case the preview isn't meant to be an aspect of the part however, but a name, which should be interpreted by the part to extract the relevant information. My intention was to insert the use case element that would lead to a requirement for an architectural element which would extend the view to support the naming variant. (apologies in advance for abusing haystack terminology) > 3.2.8 > > I don't understand planned distinctions between type and class. Type indicates how a name or URI should be interpreted. Class indicates how a metadata subgraph should be interpreted. Arguably type is a function of XML Schema, but I'm less interested in the syntactic content of the Literal, than I am in the semantic meaning of the content of the Literal. Type isn't an attempt to define that meaning, just a linkage to its interpretation. Again borrowing from Haystack, Type would be analogous to the linkage between the ViewPart and the java class which implements the view part. From the slides you gave us I'm not sure how you do that linkage, but one possibility would be to write a statement with a reserved predicate (:Implementation) that identifies the class as an RDF Literal. I meant 3.2.8 as a place holder for that linkage. > 3.4 > > Distributed resources adds whole different scope. It opens up a host > of nasty problems of course. We could avoid them by limiting our > dealing of with distributed metadata to devising a simple > block-transfer protocol, getting all the metadata to a single > location, and dealing with it there. The metadata might not be fully > up to date, but it avoids a lot of trouble. Since even in centralized > scenario everything is hard, perhaps we defer distributed search? > To my mind, Semantic Web without the Web is just Semantic Filesystem. Cheers, -kls -- ======================================================== Kevin Smathers kevin.smathers@hp.com Hewlett-Packard kevin@ank.com Palo Alto Research Lab 1501 Page Mill Rd. 650-857-4477 work M/S 1135 650-852-8186 fax Palo Alto, CA 94304 510-247-1031 home ======================================================== use "Standard::Disclaimer"; carp("This message was printed on 100% recycled bits.");
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 17:59:56 UTC