RE: A URI for the class of SOAP MEPs

Unless the specification said whether section URIs indicate concepts or
sections.  It was suggested in the AbstractComponentRefs-37 finding that
for Media type registration, and it could make sense for it to go into
the vocabulary as well for the same purposes.  RDF statement engines
might have to look at the vocabulary to determine which a URI indicates,
so I'd imagine some kind of standard would be useful. 

Further, does the implication of Noah's advice mean that the default for
a specification is that URIs in documents do not indicate concepts?  

I wonder if there is any way of making the URIs self-describing, aka
contain metadata that indicates whether the URI refers to concept or
content.  

BTW, won't every XML element and attribute in every XML document that is
retrievable - which could have an XPath that points to "the thing" -
have this problem of differentiating betwixt content and concept?  

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of
> noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:55 AM
> To: Jacek Kopecky
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: A URI for the class of SOAP MEPs
> 
> 
> Jacek Kopecky writes:
> 
> > Is there a summary of the points against using such section
> > URIs to indicate concepts?
> 
> I think so.  Basically, it becomes very hard to make an RDF statement
> about the section without it ambiguously appearing to be a statement
about
> the concept, and vice versa.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
> 01/19/06 12:39 PM
> 
>         To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
>         cc:     www-tag@w3.org
>         Subject:        Re: A URI for the class of SOAP MEPs
> 
> 
> Hi Noah, TAG,
> 
> the suggestion to use a section URI for the concept defined in the
> section was first (to my knowledge) discussed in WS-Description WG,
> as those WG members who aren't SemWeb-fluent didn't see the point of
> inventing new URIs for the purpose of the RDF mapping.
> 
> I haven't seen the RDDL discussion on the TAG list, I'll try to have a
> look. I guess the problems of resource vs. its description, and "what
> are really resources identified with URIs with fragment IDs in them?"
> are pretty subtle.
> 
> Is there a summary of the points against using such section URIs to
> indicate concepts?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jacek
> 
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 18:06 -0500, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > On distApp Jacek Kopecky raised a question [1] as to whether it
would be
> 
> > appropriate to use the URI of a section in the SOAP Recommendation
to
> > identify the class of all possible SOAP Message exchange patterns.
I
> have
> > suggested that a separate URI would be more appropriate [2].  I
think
> the
> > SOAP question is the direct analog of the RDDL natures discussion
we've
> > been having here.
> >
> > Noah
> >
> > [1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0103.html
> > [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0110.html
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Noah Mendelsohn
> > IBM Corporation
> > One Rogers Street
> > Cambridge, MA 02142
> > 1-617-693-4036
> > --------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:15:14 UTC