- From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:49:02 -0700
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, 'URI' <uri@w3.org>
But this approach means a parser cannot figure out the meaning of a URI without a GET. How would a parser know that a document about such a URI is really about something else (the subject of the URI) and not the resource the URI itself is identifying? For this to work, I need to hardcode http://t-d-b.org into every parser to have a specialized meaning. EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: David Booth [mailto:david@dbooth.org] > Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:08 AM > To: Larry Masinter > Cc: 'Jonathan Rees'; ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Eran Hammer-Lahav; > apps-discuss@ietf.org; www-tag@w3.org; 'URI' > Subject: RE: URI for abstract concepts (domain, host, origin, site, > etc.) > > Larry, > > On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 10:53 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote: > > I'm thinking about revising > > http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html > > > > to: > > (1) to get rid of "duri" and just stick with "tdb" > > (because there isn't much use for duri at all) > > (2) make it a URI scheme rather than a URN namespace > > (3) make the date optional, for cases where the time of > > binding resource to representation (and of interpretation > > of that representation to an 'abstract concept') > > > > So the simplest form would be > > > > tdb:http://larry.masinter.net > > That makes it remarkably similar to > http://t-d-b.org?http://larry.masinter.net > > but the t-d-b.org URI has the advantage that it doesn't require a new > URI scheme, and it *might* be dereferenceable by a browser. In fact, > at > the moment it *is* dereferenceable. > > > > > which would neatly allow using descriptions of > > abstract concepts to identify the abstract concept. > > That sounds like what the "http://t-d-b.org?" prefix does. > > > (Syntactically, the date can be left out without > > ambiguity.) > > > > Would this be helpful, at least for illustrative purposes? > > I think the goal is reasonable, but as explained in > http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/ > I don't think a new URI scheme is necessary to achieve it. Similar > things can be done with http URIs, with greater benefit. > > > > > I think there are other means for distinguishing > > between the representation of a description and > > the thing described, but this would at least > > add a well-known method that isn't tied to > > any particular protocol, linking method, resolution > > method, etc. > > Right, but "http:" URIs do not necessarily need to be resolved using > HTTP, nor do they necessarily need to be resolved at all. At worst > they > can be treated as opaque strings, but at best they *might* be > dereferenceable to useful information. A URI prefix like > "http://t-d-b.org?" can become "well known" just as "tdb:" can. This > is > a social issue, independent of whether a new scheme is defined. > > > -- > David Booth, Ph.D. > Cleveland Clinic (contractor) > > Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not > necessarily > reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 16:49:46 UTC