- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:35:17 -0400
- To: Max Voelkel <voelkel@fzi.de>
- CC: renato@ebi.ac.uk, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Max Voelkel wrote:
> j> I am trying to tease out the distinction between a URI that points to a
> j> resource that "represents" me and a URI that serves as an identifier
> j> ("name") for me.
> Luckily, thats all defined inweb architecture since the http-range-14 debate.
>
> A human-friendly explanation of the W3C-resolution can be found here:
> http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~sauermann/2006/11/cooluris/
>
> I believe/hope it answers all these questions ;-)
>
Max,
So what happens when I have digital representations of Entities/Concepts
(Things) in Data Spaces that are not directly accessible via HTTP but
accessible via other TCP/IP based protocols (making them part of the
Internet)?
Your document inadvertently (your reference to URNs not fitting into
section 3) implying that HTTP URLs is ultimately the only way which I
disagree with. I believe that Entities / Concepts in Data Spaces should
be represented for accessibility using the URL or URN approaches. After
all, we are dealing with Distributed Web or Internet based Object IDs
when we refer to URIs, at the end of the day.
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2007 11:35:45 UTC