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

Re: Announcement: The "info" URI Scheme

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:06:38 +0300
To: ext Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BBA09DFE.1A7E%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

On 2003-10-01 14:45, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> While having some sympathy with Patrick here, I note that a new scheme that
> is URIs not URLs neatly sidesteps the car/document problems.

Which is simply a problem that must be solved, if the Web
and SW are to progress...

The tradeoff, having no easy means to obtain representations/descriptions
of resources denoted by info URIs is IMO far greater a loss.

Particularly when the resources denoted are fundamental terms
used broadly in the classification of resources -- where the ability
to easily obtain schema based descriptions of those terms for
inference and other operations is a big win for applications.

> An info URI identifies a concept not a document about that concept.
> A similar http URL would be taken as identifying either or both depending
> on who you talk to.

True. But one of them would be wrong ;-)

And that's why I've been working hard on URIQA, so that such
disagreements can be easily resolves by asking the web authority
for an authoritative description of the denoted resource, which
(hopefully) will include some rdf:type assertions.

Rather than publish an insulated info: URI, an http: URI could
be used and precise descriptions of the denoted resources published
on the appropriate servers. E.g.

   MGET http://lccn.some.root.domain/2002022641 HTTP/1.1

where the server lccn.some.root.domain is managed by whomever
is responsible for managing the LCCN namespace, and a request
such as above would return RDF which explicitly defines the
resource denoted by that URI.

Thus, the owners of the namespace themselves can *still* avoid the
document/car problem by employing a URIQA enlightened server
which provides precise descriptions of the resources denoted,
thus making it clear precisely what kind of resource it is.

A new URI scheme that is not dereferencable is, IMO, a step
backwards (or at best sideways), not forwards.

It's the proverbial "hiding your light under a bushel basket".
HTTP + URIQA offer a great table. Why not use it.



> Jeremy
> Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) wrote:
>>> Why define and manage the URI space outside the scope of the core Web
>>> and SW machinery?
>> Hi Patrick:
>> I have to query the question you put above. IMO the "info" URI scheme fits
>> full square within the core Web and SW machinery as articulated in the
>> latest Web Architecture Draft:
>> Architecture of the World Wide Web
>> W3C Working Draft 27 June 2003
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
>> The domain of URI is more extensive than HTTP alone. I would assert that the
>> actual domain of URI is the Web.
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 08:06:49 UTC

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