W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2011

Re: naive question: why prefer absolute URIs to # URIs for linked data?

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:28:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4EA16550.9000708@webr3.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, www-tag@w3.org
CC: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Jonathan Rees wrote:
> Even if there are other ways to think about retrieval vs. reference
> that work better that this, I hope my point remains: the properties
> are more important than the types.

I agree with all you say, and you've done some great work these past few 
months - the referential-use document is very well written, and very 
clear :)

In my time away I've thought about the issue(s) a great deal, and my 
main general comment, is that I'm worried that dealing with the 
retrieval case only may not be complete enough, and will leave lots of 
scope for these issues to re-arise. I guess this would bear most on any 
httpRange-14-replacement guidance.

The only potential clarity I have on the issue, and why I've clipped 
above, is that I feel the /only/ property that distinguishes an "IR" 
from anything else in the universe, is that it has a 
[transfer/transport]-protocol as a property of it. In the case of HTTP 
this would be anything that has an HTTP Interface as a property of it.

If we say that anything with this property is a member of set X.

If an interaction with the thing named <p:y>, using protocol 'p:', is 
successful, then <p:y> is a member of X.

An X of course, being what is currently called an "Information Resource".

Taking this approach would then position 303 as a clear opt-out built in 
to HTTP which allows a server to remain indifferent and merely point to 
some other X which may, or may not, give one more information as to what 
<p:y> refers to.

Though, this may all be nonsense of course!


Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 12:28:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:40 UTC