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

Re: Some TAG review of "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:29:38 -0500
Message-Id: <p06230906c31ee591c479@[]>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Technical Architecture Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>, Susie Stephens <susie.stephens@gmail.com>

>On 25 Sep 2007, at 01:05, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>We already have a name for the only category we need: they are HTTP 
>>OK, I won't push the ambiguity point for the people/web-pages case 
>>any more. So as for people, we can reasonably assert that people 
>>aren't this kind of thing: a person can't be an http endpoint, so 
>>if you get a 200 code back then the URI doesn't denote a person.
>Yuck. That's not coherent at all.

Sure it is. See below.

>  Let's say I send an HTTP GET to some URI, and the response is 404. 
>Clearly, I have connected to something, that thing has received my 
>HTTP request, and generated an HTTP response. I'd say that's good 
>evidence for the existence of an HTTP endpoint associated with that 
>URI, even though the URI might not actually identify any resource.

Sounds like we agree.

>Same for 303. If I mint a URI and intend it to identify a person, 
>then of course I can set up an HTTP endpoint for that URI and make 
>it dispense 303 redirects.

Right, but in both these cases, the suggested "200 rule", that the 
URI denotes or refers to the HTTP endpoint, no longer applies. The 
rule isn't that there is nothing there to connect to. Certainly, as 
you say, something is there, and it did something. But in these 
cases, the URI that GETs to it might not also denote or refer to it. 
And we are free to stipulate what URIs denote or refer to, 
independently from what they connect to.

>The one thing I can't make it do, according to httpRange-14, is 
>dispense representations at that URI.
>A more fruitful endeavour might be to shed some light on the 
>relationship between a resource and its representation(s). Why can 
>certain resources have representations, and others not? Who gets to 
>associate representations with a resource?

First, make sure we are all clear about what sense of 
'representation' we are talking about. The REST/TAG notion is very 
different from the sense used elsewhere. What sense do you intend? 
For example, using your sense, can an OWL ontology be a 
representation of whatever it is understood to describe?


>>>>  No, that "identify" is one case of "name". Which is true enough for
>>>>  government work, I will agree. But not all names are identifiers, is
>>>>  my point.
>>>On that and other matters, I'll perhaps reply separately.
>>>I'm still thinking it over.
>>>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>>IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
>>40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
>>Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
>>FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
>>phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 16:30:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:18 UTC