W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2003

Re: httpRange-14

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:19:16 +0100
Message-ID: <3F267454.7010600@eircom.net>
To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, www-tag@w3.org

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

I've always thought this was the obvious solution to the
RDF issue instead of engaging in months of pointless metaphysical
debates on the true nature of URIs. RDF needs unambiguous identifiers
that don't have the baggage that exists with current URI schemes and
their association with network retrievable information resources.
[that was one big line - mua problem?]

Well nothing in the model theory would break. Don't know about the 
deployed tools - I guess all their (URI) equivalence methods would 
break. In my experience the URIs are the biggest assumption you'd 
take on with an RDF tool.

The main arguments against that idea are:

  o - RDF would then have nothing to to do with the current web 
(other than being useful to describe and annotate bits of it). 
Possibly that would unsettle people.

  o - you need bind/deref mechanisms in any case; both to move the 
triples aound and more importantly to find out more information 
about the triples you have to hand. There's not a lot of point 
creating and deploying a transfer protocol for the semantic web, 
when we have 4 or 5 perfectly good ones already.

The other option is to build machinery to allow any ole URI to be 
dereferenced, which makes stuff like DDDS very attractive.

Bill de hÓra
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2003 09:19:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:00 UTC