- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:29:37 +0300
- To: <zednenem@psualum.com>, <daniel.oconnor@gmail.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext > David Menendez > Sent: 21 September, 2004 03:13 > To: Daniel O'Connor > Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Subject: Re: web proper names > > > > Daniel O'Connor writes: > > > > > Mmm, I stumbled across this in my internet travels today: > > > > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html > > > > And thought it was of some relevance. > > It's funny. I agree with most of TBL's premises, but I reach the > opposite conclusion: I side with Roy Fielding and the "URIs > can identify > anything" camp. > > I think the problem with Tim's argument is that he assumes "URIs can > identify abstract things (not web pages)" is the same as "all URIs > identify abstract things (not web pages)". As I see it, some URIs > identify web pages and other identify abstract, non-web-page things. > > The key point, for me, is that web pages are *themselves* abstract > things. Every time you dereference <http://www.cnn.com/>, for example, > you will get a different HTML document, but they all > represent the same > thing. > > You can ask, "Does <http://www.cnn.com/> identify 'CNN' or 'the front > page of CNN'?" The truth is we don't know. CNN controls the > URI, and so > far as I know they haven't come down on one side or another. That just > means that we shouldn't use <http://www.cnn.com/> in our RDF data, > because we don't know what it means. +1! In my ideal world, one could ask MGET / HTTP/1.1 Host: www.cnn.com and get back an RDF description that would tell us what <http://www.cnn.com> actually means... ;-) > > On the other hand, if we want to talk about a particular HTML document > we obtained by dereferencing <http://www.cnn.com/>, then we > need to say > something like this: > > [ a ex:HTMLDocument ] ex:obtainedFrom "http://www.cnn.com/". > > > The fun part[1] is that the document is itself a resource and could be > given its own URI (perhaps > <http://example.com/pagesIveDownloaded/12345> > or <cid:123456@example.com>). Exactly. Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 09:30:19 UTC