RE: web proper names redux

I think what is needed is to be clear about the level or layer
at which the URI is being employed. At some layers, e.g. the
semantic web layer, the URI is fully opaque. At other layers,
e.g. the web layer, the URI is less opaque in specific ways,
since it must be parsed to determine if/how resolution should
take place.

But even at the web layer, there are still elements of opacity
to URIs in that e.g. mnemonic/linguistic characteristics that 
one might wish to identify and interpret in some manner would
not be licensed -- i.e. the URI terminal substring '.html' does
not indicate anything about the encoding of any representation
one might obtain via that URI; insofar as the web architecture
is concerned, that aspect of the URI is opaque, even if it
offers the humans creating/managing that URI some utility.

Opacity is IMO a central and critical feature of the web and
semantic web, and rather than not speaking about opacity, we
simply need to be clear about what degree of opacity holds at
a given layer of the architectural cake.

Cheers,

Patrick



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext Joshua Allen
> Sent: 29 September, 2004 12:48
> To: Thomas B. Passin; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Cc: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: web proper names redux
> 
> 
> 
> Tony still raises a very important point, though.  I would 
> suggest that
> we stop using the adjective "opaque" in reference to URIs, since it's
> almost always interpreted to mean more than originally intended.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Thomas B. Passin
> > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 5:20 PM
> > To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> > Cc: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re: web proper names redux
> > 
> > 
> > Hammond, Tony wrote:
> > >>This isn't really a "solution" at the RDF level, since URIs 
> > are fully 
> > >>opaque, and thus, one is not licensed to examine the URI 
> scheme to 
> > >>make decisions regarding the meaning of a given URI, 
> insofar as the 
> > >>RDF MT is concerned. True, some people do that, but that is 
> > >>non-conformant and potentially dangerous behavior for a SW client.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This actually should not go unchallenged - it is simply 
> > incorrect - see 
> > > 
> > > 	http://w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-opacity
> > 
> > Patrick specifically qualified the remark you quoted above by 
> > restricting it to the RDF Recs.  Any parsing of URLs is above 
> > and beyond 
> > what a conformant RDF processor is required to do.  There is 
> > nothing to 
> > prevent you from parsing out a uri and using the results to 
> > add triples, 
> > and it might even be very useful sometimes, but it's not 
> > provided for by 
> > RDF.  And why should it be?  At present, RDF has no mechanism to 
> > incorporate any specific uri into itself, no matter how 
> > useful it might 
> > be.  I don't see a good reason to integrate in a specific 
> uri scheme 
> > that can be parsed, when we can't integrate any uris, period.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Tom P
> > 
> > -- 
> > Thomas B. Passin
> > Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books)
> > http://www.manning.com/catalog/view.php?book=passin
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 11:16:32 UTC