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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com 
> [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 04 November, 2004 02:16
> To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
> Cc: chris@w3.org; GK@ninebynine.org; joshuaa@microsoft.com; 
> skw@hp.com;
> timbl@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: 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 .  

I fully agree.

Though such regularity should be considered for the benefit of
the owner/manager of the URI space, and not for "consumers"
of the URIs themselves.

> 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. 

All fair and true. 

But I still think my comments about those URIs are valid.
 
> 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.  

Technically, I agree.

Though, what about all the other datatyping schemes and sources? 
Will we have a different embedded syntax for every set of datatypes?

My point was never that it couldn't work, but that it seemed a bit
too much of a hack.

I think that whatever solution is promoted/adopted, it should be
generic, and work in exactly the same way for any arbitrary datatype,
no matter who defines it.

(I also think the best solution would be to allow literals as subjects,
 but I'm not holding my breath for that).

> 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.

True.

> 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.

Fair enough.

Patrick


> 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 05:48:31 UTC