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

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

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:50:58 -0400
Message-ID: <4EA186D2.9030103@arcanedomain.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, www-tag@w3.org, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 10/21/2011 8:28 AM, Nathan wrote:
> 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.

Really? Let's imagine something that's pretty clearly a document, e.g. the 
text of the US Declaration of Independence. Let's say someone, for whatever 
good or bad reason, decides to mint a URN to identify it. I would claim:

* It's clearly within the scope of what was intended by an IR. I was 
careful to say that the resource in question is the text of the 
declaration, that text can easily be conveyed in a message using an 
encoding like ASCII, unicode, etc.

* There is not necessarily a transfer/transport protocol associated with 
it, and if there were, the choice of protocol(s) might evolve over decades 
or centuries.

The distinguishing characteristic of an IR is that it is ammenable to 
(having it's "essence" [1]) conveyed in a message. It is not required that 
the means of doing so are spelled out in advance, stable over time, or in 
fact ever realized in practice. The declaration is an IR, IMO, whether or 
not we choose to deploy it using HTTP at a given time. And...because it is 
an IR, status code 200 is appropriate should we at any point wish to use HTTP.

I think the distinction is important.

Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 14:51:19 UTC

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