RE: Standard URI Set, and Resource Description Protocol (rdp://)

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext David Menendez [mailto:zednenem@psualum.com]
Sent: 22 May, 2003 07:09
To: Sherman Monroe; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: Re: Standard URI Set, and Resource Description Protocol (rdp://)


At 10:43 AM -0700 2003-05-21, Sherman Monroe wrote:

I am in the process of developing a global, standard URI set. The set will contain exactly one URI for each ìconceptî within the setís domain. In other words, a concept will be represented by exactly one URI. The idea is to solve the problem of interoperability. When RDF publishers wish to describe a resource, they use URI's which they have looked up the in the global URI set. This would/could develop into a defacto consensus. This does two things: 


At some point, having a well-known set of URIs for referring to common concepts will be very useful. It isn't clear to me whether we're at that point, but I suppose that depends on what set of concepts you're talking about identifying. 
 

I agree that having such a set will be not only useful, but crucial for reliable global communication
between SW agents. But a new URI scheme is not necessary.
 
C.f. http://sw.nokia.com/URIQA.html for an alternative approach to this problem. 


I read TBL's paper <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html> [1] about the URI crisis, and I agree with most of what he says. I feel that the URI should be completely opaque, and that no promises should be made as to what a URI will return if a browser is pointed to it. Browsers are for locating resources in the www space. We need a protocol that the semantic web machines can use to denote resources in the semantic space. Therefore, the URIs in our global set will begin with rdp://. This settles the issue as to what a browser will return for RDF URIís.


First, is a new URI scheme really necessary? Why not use URNs?


Second, I have to say that I'm not yet convinced by TBL's argument. It seems to me that I can easily assign a URI to my car (eg, <http://example.com/my/car>) and other URIs to documents describing my car (eg, <http://example.com/my/car.html>, <http://example.com/my/car.jpg>) and use content negotiation and the Content-Location header to return an appropriate representation if someone happened to dereference <http://example.com/my/car>.

[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html


 
 I  also believe that one can use an http: URI without any fragment identifier to denote anything
whatsoever. I think the distinction tha TimBL argues for is artificial, not supported by broad
usage on the web, and unneccessary for SW agents. 
 
I'm also personally against the use of fragment identifiers for denoting anything other than
structural and/or functional components of the resource denoted by the base URI.  So it's
p robably then no wonder that I don't agree with Tim's view on URI refs.
 
Cheers,
 
Patrick
  


-- 
Dave Menendez - zednenem@psualum.com - http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/