- From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:31:13 -0800
- To: "'Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)'" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Tony, A quick question. Lets take an example from FAQ [1]: info:pii/s0888-7543(02)96852-7 What is "pii" namespace? Where is it defined? - I missed this when briefly browsing docs. Does it stand for "primary internet interests" or "private intimate ideas"? :-) BTW: why not URN scheme? [1] http://www2.elsevier.co.uk/~tony/info/info.html --Nikita ! -----Original Message----- ! From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-interest- ! request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) ! Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 2:45 AM ! To: 'Patrick Stickler' ! Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org ! Subject: RE: URI: Name or Network Location? ! ! ! Hi Patrick: ! ! > There is no need to introduce yet another URI scheme just to handle ! > (more) persistent naming and redirection. ! ! I would just like to point out that INFO expressly excludes dereference - ! so ! no redirection available. There are multiple reasons why we have ! positioned ! INFO thus. I would invite you to consult the FAQ at ! <http://info-uri.info/registry/docs/misc/faq.html> which goes into the ! details of why we have made this design choice. Bottom line is that we are ! looking for a lightweight scheme for conferring identity (alone) of public ! namespaces onto the Web. We do not support the idea of overloading the ! HTTP ! document retrieval functionality with an independent naming functionality. ! (By retrieval I intend the full set of CRUD actions.) Also any reliance on ! DNS is inherently fragile and unnecessary - and frankly confusing. ! ! > I am personally saddened to see the info: URI scheme emerge ! > rather than a similar solution based on http: URIs, ! ! Without intending to be facetious, I also am personally saddened to see ! all ! URIs collapsed to a single HTTP scheme. That would seem to me to be the ! undoing of URI as a generic identifier architecture. The possibilities ! that ! URI presents as a federeated namespace for identifying resources is too ! great not to want to see it further elaborated so as to incorporate legacy ! naming systems. ! ! Tony ! ! ! ! > -----Original Message----- ! > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org ! > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Patrick Stickler ! > Sent: 23 January 2004 07:38 ! > To: ext Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) ! > Cc: ext Sandro Hawke; Thomas B. Passin; 'Phil Dawes'; ext Jeremy ! > Carroll; www-rdf-interest@w3.org ! > Subject: Re: URI: Name or Network Location? ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > On Jan 22, 2004, at 17:38, ext Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) wrote: ! > ! > >> It seems to me ! > >> that the most obvious way of addressing this is to use a ! > URI to denote ! > >> the thing (i.e. a name) and a seperate way of talking about the ! > >> numerous ways of locating information about it. ! > > ! > > Hence INFO, see <http://info-uri.info/> ... ! > ! > ! > There is no need to introduce yet another URI scheme just to handle ! > (more) persistent naming and redirection. ! > ! > http: based PURLs work just fine. As I've pointed out before, you ! > can accomplish all that you aim to accomplish with the info: URI ! > scheme by simply using http: URIs grounded in your top level ! > domain, delegating control of subtrees of that namespace to the ! > various managing entities per each subscheme (the same is true ! > of urn: URIs). Then each http: URI can be associated with an ! > alias to which it redirects, as well as allow for access to ! > metadata descriptions via solutions such as URIQA[1]. E.g. ! > rather than ! > ! > info:lccn/n78890351 ! > ! > you'd have ! > ! > http://info-uri.info/lccn/n78890351 ! > ! > thus providing just as robust and long lived an identifier (since ! > one would think that if info-uri.info dissappeared, so too would ! > all integrity for any info: URI) yet still allow existing web ! > protocols such as HTTP to be employed to provide access to ! > descriptions and representations; either directly or via ! > redirections of various sorts. ! > ! > Even if some particular info subscheme had no intention of ! > providing any representations or descriptions *now*, if ever ! > the decision were changed, it would be possible with *no* ! > impact to any usage of those URIs as names. ! > ! > I am personally saddened to see the info: URI scheme emerge ! > rather than a similar solution based on http: URIs, dispite ! > my appreciation that the definition of standardized URIs ! > for so many important vocabularies has been sorely needed ! > for far too long. ! > ! > Patrick ! > ! > ! > [1] http://sw.nokia.com/uriqa/URIQA.html ! > ! > ! > > ! > > Tony ! > > ! > > ! > >> -----Original Message----- ! > >> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org ! > >> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Phil Dawes ! > >> Sent: 22 January 2004 15:23 ! > >> To: Patrick Stickler ! > >> Cc: ext Sandro Hawke; www-rdf-interest@w3.org; Thomas B. ! > Passin; ext ! > >> Jeremy Carroll ! > >> Subject: Re: URI: Name or Network Location? ! > >> ! > >> ! > >> ! > >> Hi Patrick, ! > >> ! > >> Patrick Stickler writes: ! > >>> ! > >>> Per your view, most URIs do not denote web pages, images, ! > >>> video streams, services, etc. but all denote "locations" and ! > >>> if we ever want to describe all those web-accessible resources, ! > >>> we need an entirely different set of URIs for them if we wish ! > >>> to talk about them. ! > >>> ! > >> ! > >> But surely the only reason this argument has weight is ! > because there ! > >> is usually only 1 way of retrieving that web resource* - i.e. HTTP. ! > >> Thus it becomes an attractive choice for naming it. ! > >> ! > >> If the web hadn't turned out the way it has, and there were lots of ! > >> protocols vying on equal footing for supremacy, then the ! > 'it's a name' ! > >> argument wouldn't seem so obvious. We would, as you say, ! > probably have ! > >> a way of talking about the web resource itself, and a ! > seperate way of ! > >> talking about the numerous ways of locating it. ! > >> ! > >> The problem now is that we are attempting to use HTTP URIs ! > to describe ! > >> abstract concepts and physical objects, and so the 'it's a name' ! > >> argument for HTTP URIs is suddenly non-obvious again. It ! > seems to me ! > >> that the most obvious way of addressing this is to use a ! > URI to denote ! > >> the thing (i.e. a name) and a seperate way of talking about the ! > >> numerous ways of locating information about it. ! > >> ! > >> Cheers, ! > >> ! > >> Phil ! > >> ! > >> * or the representation of that resource ! > >> ! > > ! > > ! > ! > -- ! > ! > Patrick Stickler ! > Nokia, Finland ! > patrick.stickler@nokia.com ! > !
Received on Friday, 23 January 2004 07:37:39 UTC