On Mar 10, 2004, at 13:52, ext Benja Fallenstein wrote:

> Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>>> (2) it violates the principle of URI opacity
>>> Is this a real-world problem? robots.txt violates the principal of
>>> URI opacity, but still adds lots of value to the web.
>> And it is frequently faulted, and alternatives actively discussed.
>> In fact, now that you mention it, I see URIQA as an ideal replacement
>> for robots.txt in that one can request a description of the root
>> web authority base URI, e.g. '' and recieve a
>> description of that site, which can define crawler policies in
>> terms of RDF in a much more effective manner.
> That would carry over one of the reasons why we need a replacement for 
> robots.txt: that its notion of 'web site' is bad. If somebody 
> maintains a website for some project at 
> http://someuniversity/~name/projectname/, that site should be able to 
> have e.g. robot exclusion information without convincing the 
> university's web server admins or purchasing a domain name. See
> The above proposes a Website: header containing an RDF URI. With 
> URIQA, you could do an MGET on a page to discover its site, then do an 
> MGET on that URI to find out about its robots policy.


> But doing an MGET on the root URI of the domain would be really flawed.

Fair enough.

Still, the main point is that URIQA actually provides alot of 
for alot of application areas having to do with general knowledge 

Need I mention Web Services....




Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland

Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 07:04:32 UTC