Re: "tdb" and "duri" URI schemes...

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:

> I would write the lifecycle as:
>
> 0. Resource comes into being
> 1. Someone (Party A) makes up ("mints") a URI to identify the resource
>   (This 'someone' doesn't have to be an 'owner' or have any relationship to the resource)
> 2. Party A then communicates this URI to party B ('uses the URI in a statement')
> 3. Party B  reads the statement and attempts to 'resolve' the URI [determine/
>             contact/interact with] the resource

This is good, but I think a better version of the lifecycle (one that
reflects better the reality) has an additional step:

0. Resource comes into being
1. Someone (Party A) makes up ("mints") a URI to identify the resource
  (This 'someone' doesn't have to be an 'owner' [of the resource] or
have any relationship to the resource)
2. Party A then communicates this URI to party B ('uses the URI in a statement')
3. Party B communicates this URI (in a second statement) to party C
4. Party C  reads the 2nd statement and attempts to 'resolve' the URI
[determine/
            contact/interact with the resource]

That is, a 'definition' of a URI can be used by two non-defining
agents in meaningful communication. The dictionary writer enables two
agents in possession of the dictionary to communicate.

For example, A might be an agent 'minting' an http: URI for a
document, who communicates the URI to B by transmitting email to B
containing the URI. Then B puts the URI in a document s/he controls,
which C reads, and C tries to resolve it.

The point being that once B knows the URI, B can 'introduce' the
resource to C using that URI. (The 'Granovetter diagram.') C and A
needn't precoordinate any more than randomly selected pairs of agents.
If there are only two agents, there is only bilateral communication,
and much of the richness of the Internet/Web - standards, registries,
DNS, etc. - isn't needed.

In your account you need a disclaimer that by 'resource' you mean
'network resource' or 'resolvable resource'. RFC 3986 and RDF both
permit 'resources' that you can't interact with, such as the earth's
core, and I'm confident that sense of the word is different from what
you mean here by 'resource' (although 'determine' makes me wonder).
This is a simple terminological spat that can be cleared up with a
definition or citation to a definition.

I think it's important to recognize that in David's account 'URI
owner' and 'resource owner' are orthogonal. *If* I were to convince
you that http://example/magnacarta is a URI 'identifying' the Magna
Carta, this may be because I exercised 'ownership' over that URI
(perhaps I own the domain). That doesn't mean that I own the Magna
Carta. Whether we want to talk in this way is a separate matter; but
it is a self-consistent way to talk.

Jonathan

Received on Monday, 21 February 2011 14:45:51 UTC