RE: URIS for Literals (was: Re: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information resource"))

Patrick Stickler writes:

>> The idea of having (preferably recognizable) "micro 
>> parsing schemes" within http: URIs is interesting 
>> and something I have to think about a bit.

I don't think I proposed that either.  IMO the Web Arch document has it 
about right on URI opacity [1].  URI's may have regular structure, but 
don't look in there except for structure actually licensed by the 
specifications and/or owner of the URI, and even then only when necessary. 
 

Nonetheless, I think that any reasonable URI allocation approach that 
covers the values in XML Schema types is likely to have a degree of 
regularity, e.g.: 

        http://www.w3.org/2004/SchemaSimpleTypes/Integer/12
        http://www.w3.org/2004/SchemaSimpleTypes/Integer/13

W3C date space has essentially the same sort of regularity .  Consider as 
a handy example, the URI quoted below at [1].  The URI is hierarchical, 
per RFC 2396, and if you ask the W3C they might tell you some things about 
how they're using the hierarchy.    For most purposes, it's good practice 
to treat that URI as opaque.  Still, W3C will tell you that this is 
probably a name first created around 2004, and that it's a name intended 
to be used for Technical Reports.  There are circumstances in which it's 
appropriate, with care, to rely on such structure, but as the Web Arch 
document warns you, there are consequences when you do. 
Same for the integer URI's proposed above.  I don't think it's in all 
cases a mistake to cons up the string

        http://www.w3.org/2004/SchemaSimpleTypes/Integer/13579

to represent the integer resource 13579, providing W3C has told you that 
all of the URIs of form

        http://www.w3.org/2004/SchemaSimpleTypes/Integer/*

have been assigned for use in this manner.  Still, you should isolate such 
dependencies to the extent possible.  The Web itself, RDF, etc. will and 
should treat this as an opaque resource identifier. 

FWIW, one might well argue that URIs of the form:

 http://www.w3.org/2004/SchemaSimpleTypes?typeName="Integer"+value="12"

could be in the mix for consideration.  I have no strong opinion. 
Certainly user agents are regularly aware of the structure of the 
parameters to such URI query strings.

Long ago Dan suggested a target of <=3 contributions per thread per person 
on a topic [2], unless there's specification text that's being 
productively refined.    To paraphrase James Bond [3], "I've had my 
three", so I don't expect to follow up on this thread any further.  The 
point was that we might consider URIs for members of the XML Schema Simple 
types.  This thread has safely logged that proposal and your responses.  I 
suggest we let it go until such time as it might prove useful to some 
other workgroup.

Noah


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040816/#uri-opacity
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0147
[3] http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/movies/dn_quotes.php3?t=dn&s=dn

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------

Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 00:17:29 UTC