- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:06:24 -0500
- To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, 'URI' <uri@w3.org>
On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > 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? > Why would a *parser* need to know such a thing? A reasoner could know this by having access to some sentences that told it what the URI refers to. I don't know of any other general way that any entity, including a human being, could know what a URI was intended to denote. > For this to work, I need to hardcode http://t-d-b.org into every > parser to have a specialized meaning. No, you just have to know that it indicates that the URI refers to *something*. Since URIs can (be used to) refer to anything, it isnt possible to have a "specialized" meaning. Pat > > 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. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 22:07:33 UTC