- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:40:44 -0400
- To: "Chimezie Ogbuji" <chimezie@gmail.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> From: Chimezie Ogbuji > [ . . . ] > 2. The dereference problem is scheme independent > > The second part of this particular point assumes there will > *inevitabely* be a need to dereference these (insert your > favorite other scheme here) URIs. This is not always true, > especially when the URIs in question are RDF URIs. RDF URIs > and their use have a model-theoretic mechanism for making > claims about the world. In most cases, these claims (very > mathematical in nature) are meant to be much more authoritative > than what representation you might get from dereferencing > the URIs themselves especially when the claims are subject to > much more fine-grained constraints through the use of a formal > (OWL) ontology. > [ . . . ] I think it is reasonable to assume that a URI consumer will inevitably want to find out what resource that URI is intended to denote, i.e., to obtain its URI declaration[1]. The URI declaration *is* the authoritative information about what resource the URI denotes. So it sounds like you are describing a situation in which the representation obtained via follow-your-nose[2] from the URI is *not* the (authoritative) URI declaration, but the (authoritative) URI declaration is provided in some other way. If that is what you mean, then I do not think that would be a good practice, because unless the representation somehow explicitly indicates that it is *not* the (authoritative) URI declaration, it is likely to mistaken for one. I'm not sure this impacts the point you were trying to make regarding Issue-58 though. It sounds like you are saying that in some cases it is more efficient to bundle together a number of URI declarations in a single document, such that the client will not have to individually dereference each URI to find its declaration. I think that's quite a reasonable desire. At present, if HTTP URIs are used and follow-your-nose[2] is assumed, we only have a way to do that with hash URIs. (URIs with the same racine[3] but different fragIDs all resolve to the same document.) It would be good to be able to do it with 303-URIs also, which is why in [1] I suggested that it would be helpful to have a way to explicitly express URI declarations. If a URI declaration predicate like dbooth:declares were available, then when the first URI of a related bunch is dereferenced to find its declaration, the resulting document could declare all of the other URIs in that bunch, and a client would then know that it did not need to dereference each one to find its declaration. References 1. URI declarations: http://dbooth.org/2007/uri-decl/ 2. Follow-your-nose: http://esw.w3.org/topic/FollowYourNose 3. Racine: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Glossary David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2007 04:41:03 UTC