- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:53:31 -0700
- To: "'Jonathan Rees'" <jar@creativecommons.org>, <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Cc: "'Eran Hammer-Lahav'" <eran@hueniverse.com>, <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>, "'URI'" <uri@w3.org>
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 which would neatly allow using descriptions of abstract concepts to identify the abstract concept. (Syntactically, the date can be left out without ambiguity.) Would this be helpful, at least for illustrative purposes? 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. tdb:data:,the%20host%20larry.masinter.net might be a simple inline way of talking about the 'host' named 'larry.masinter.net'. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net -----Original Message----- From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rees Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:43 AM To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; apps-discuss@ietf.org; www-tag@w3.org; URI Subject: Re: URI for abstract concepts (domain, host, origin, site, etc.) On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:07 PM, ashok malhotra<ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Eran: > Trying to understand your proposal. > By 'abstract' do you mean URIs for which a representation cannot be > retrieved? > So, perhaps, a chair? > My assumption was that for such resources you want to retrieve the metadata. Quibble: In the case of a chair, you can't get metadata, since a chair isn't data. http://www.google.com/search?q=define:metadata This is why it's nice that Eran calls the description resource a "description resource" instead of a "metadata resource". LRDD is a compatible alternative to linked-data 303 nose-following, one that (like 303, as David Booth has pointed out) behaves uniformly without caring whether the resource is "data"-like or not - it means you don't have to ask or answer that question. I advocate using his terminology. Perhaps an alternative to a new URI scheme for hosts would be loop detection inside of LRDD? I think that's close to what you're saying. -Jonathan
Received on Sunday, 28 June 2009 17:54:10 UTC