W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2007

Re: article on URIs, is this material that can be used by the SWEO IG?

From: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:03:51 +0200
Message-ID: <465FE0F7.8050109@dfki.de>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, www-tag@w3.org

Hi Pat,

I try to answer the questions by referencing to the TAG resolution, I am 
not aware of other standards for concept URIs (besides #-uris).

It was Pat Hayes who said at the right time 01.06.2007 06:48 the 
following words:
>> Hi,
>> I only kick in with some practical input ...
>> It was Pat Hayes who said at the right time 31.05.2007 09:05 the 
>> following words:
>>>> Pat Hayes scripsit:
>>>>>  > For example,
>>>>  > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare is a subject indicator 
>>>> for
>>>>  > >Shakespeare.
>>>>>  But it also mentions Stratford-on-Avon, Mary Arden, and many other
>>>>>  things. Why is it not just as much 'about' them?
>>>> Because I don't so employ it.
>>> OK, fair enough. But then it follows that there is nothing 
>>> *intrinsic* to that resource that makes it be a subject indicator 
>>> for Shakespeare. It is so simply because you say it is. But when I 
>>> read that resource, how do I gain access to *your* intention that it 
>>> shall be a subject indicator? What readable resource is it that 
>>> tells me that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare is a subject 
>>> indicator for Shakespeare ?
>> Semantic MediaWiki has done that technically:
>> http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki
>> You see how the links are done for example here:
>> http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Special:ExportRDF/Semantic%2BMediaWiki
>> <smw:Thing 
>> rdf:about="http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Special:URIResolver/Semantic_MediaWiki"> 
>>  <smw:hasArticle 
>> rdf:resource="http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki"/>
> No, I'm afraid I don't see. In this example, everything is an 
> 'information resource': both the Wiki and the article about it. 
The URI http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Special:URIResolver/Semantic_MediaWiki 
is not HTTP-200 and does a 303, therefore, by suggestion of the TAG, it 
may be an concept. So according to the decision of the TAG, there is a 
clear distinction here.

   a) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
      2xx response, then the resource identified by that URI
      is an information resource;

   b) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
      303 (See Other) response, then the resource identified
      by that URI could be any resource;

so I see no point here arguing that both are information resources, they 
are not, as decided above.

> How would this work for something (like for example Shakespeare, or 
> for that matter my toaster oven) which is not 'on' the Web at all? How 
> would Semantic MediaWiki make a URI denote one of those things? By the 
> way, nobody has written any definitive Web articles about my toaster 
> oven.
The solution would be, you can setup a #-uri for your oven (as Timbl 
favors for small ontologies), or you can install Semantic Mediawiki on 
any server of choice to make a page about your toaster, or you can use 
David Booths http://thing-described-by.org

Or you implement a correct 303-redirect server, all info needed to do 
this is in the articles "cool uris for the semantic web" and this one:

>> The "concept identifiers" or concept URIs are of this like:
>> http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Special:URIResolver/Semantic_MediaWiki
> So what this does, apparently, is to do a 303 redirect to a URI 
> obtained by removing "/Special:URIResolver" from the concept URI. How 
> does that make this concept identifier denote a thing? Where in all 
> this is there anything to associate any URI with an actual object? In 
> the earlier example, how can MediaWiki establish a connection between 
> a URI and Shakespeare? It is not enough to say that the article itself 
> identifies the object it is 'about': we have already established that 
> that alone is not sufficient to determine the denotation. So what does 
> determine it?
In my humble understanding, the standard set by the TAG determines this.
The ideas suggested in the XML Topic Maps standard are semantically also 
correct. The problem with RDF is, that we miss the predicates for 
"isSubjectIdentiferRefOf", so there is no clear suggestion for RDF.

In ontologies I use, I introduce such properties, see here:

we would need an W3C blessed property like this:

paul:Rome a pimo:City;
 pimo:occurrenceRef http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome, <http://www.comune.roma.it/>.


DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 

Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer 
Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122
P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de

Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 09:04:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:16 UTC