- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:04:26 +0200
- To: "ext Benja Fallenstein" <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
- Cc: ext Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
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. 'http://example.com' 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 > > http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/01/08/WebSite36 > > 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. Exactly. > 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 functionality for alot of application areas having to do with general knowledge discovery. Need I mention Web Services.... Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 07:04:32 UTC