W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2003

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

From: Sherman Monroe <shermanmonroe@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 07:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20030522144515.95703.qmail@web14703.mail.yahoo.com>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
URIQA seems to be a promising solution. Questions forthcoming.

Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

Resource Description Protocol (rdp://)

I read TBL's paper 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.  

C.f. http://sw.nokia.com/URIQA.html for a solution which alleviates any need for a special URI scheme while

allowing URIs to be completely opaque yet allow SW agents to obtain knowledge about the denoted resources

irrespective of whatever (other) representations may be obtainable.


Thus, rather than an rdp: URI, one uses the header URI-Resolution-Mode with a value of Description along with

 the same URI that denotes the resource in question, and by which one may also be able to obtain representations 

suitable for a browser,  and one gets a concise bounded description of the resource in question.






Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 10:45:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:42 UTC