On Mar 10, 2004, at 13:53, ext Phil Dawes wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
> Patrick Stickler writes:
>>>> (1) it violates the rights of web authorities to control their own 
>>>> URI
>>>> space
>>> I'm not sure what you mean here. AFAICS Web authorities are still 
>>> free
>>> to do what they like with their web spaces. The agent won't get any
>>> guarantees that the RULE will work, just as it doesn't if the server
>>> chooses to implement MGET to mean e.g. 'multiple-get'.
>> It has to do with standards mandating what URIs web authorities
>> must use, not that every web authority that uses URIs matching the
>> pattern are using them to denote resource descriptions.
>> The RULE approach is like if the HTTP spec mandated that all resources
>> which resolve to HTML representations must be denoted by URIs ending
>> in '.html'.
> Actually that's not a good analogy, since we're not suggesting that
> *all* metadata to do with '' must go in
> (or whatever).
> Just that if there exists a, *and* there exists
> a, the .meta URI should resolve to
> metadata description of

It's the '.meta' suffix that is the problem.

> A closer analogy would
> be if the HTTP spec mandated that URIs ending in .html should resolve
> to representations containing html.

Er... didn't I just say that?  ;-)

> I suppose in theory the webspace provider is still free to use
> to be something else entirely, since if
> there doesn't exist a '', then an agent won't
> attempt to resolve '' anyway. (although
> they may attempt to resolve ;-)

But what if there are both?

> Actually, my only real concern with this MGET stuff is that if it does
> become the standard way for an agent to retrieve descriptive metadata,
> the likelyhood of me personally being able to participate in the
> semantic web in the near future is vastly reduced. I just can't
> imagine web hosting providers providing URIQA enabled servers cheaply
> in the near future. The main benefit of the RULE approach for me is
> that I can participate today with my existing web account. - I suspect
> this also translates to a much faster uptake globally.

I appreciate your position. Adoption of URIQA is similar to adoption
of WebDAV. It requires the involvement of the web authority to a
greater or lesser degree.

Similar challenges exist for those who wish to define personal
site specific policies, yet have no facility such as robots.txt
to do so.



> Thanks again,
> Phil


Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland

Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 07:11:23 UTC