W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

Re: A Dirk and Ndia story about RDF and URIs and HTTPrange14

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:58:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4F79CCC0.2050004@openlinksw.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
On 4/2/12 9:06 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> I said
>> There are no "owners" of URIs here.
>> There is no process of "mint" here.
>> There is no notion of "resource" and "representation" here.
>> There's no need to talk about two resources being the "same", or using "different" URIs for the "same" resource.
>> There's no separation of "information resource" vs. "general resource".
> ... to which I got some use cases where these terms, processes, distinctions might make sense.
> But by "here" I meant "in my story ".  I am not denying there are circumstances where you would naturally like to use that terminology,  but rather that there are enough use cases where the those terms and distinctions do not make sense, and it isn't necessary to reference those concepts.
> So spare me the use cases where you think "mint" makes sense, where you can argue that there is someone who really does seem to "own" a URI, where there is a clear distinction between "resource" and "representation", etc.
> Larry
When publishing Linked Data via a Linked Data oriented server.

DBpedia is a live example. The server is *minting* URIs to serve a very 
specific purpose :-)



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 15:59:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:44 UTC