- From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 00:11:52 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Identity needs to transcend protocol (URIs, methods, response codes). Identity can, instead, be encapsulated in the details of the message|payload|response since that form of information sharing can span multiple protocols and survive inevitable changes over the coming years and decades. mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 23:35, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote: > Identity (and especially persistent identity) on the internet is an unsolved > problem, and AWWW is busted insofar as it depend on assuming that that URIs > have owners. The definition falls apart, leaving you with nothing. > > Sorry. > > Larry > > > > Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless > > > -----Original message----- > > From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org> > To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> > Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org> > Sent: Mon, Apr 2, 2012 18:05:06 GMT+00:00 > > Subject: Re: A Dirk and Ndia story about RDF and URIs and HTTPrange14 > > Hi Larry, > > On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 22:42 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote: >> Since the TAG has hours scheduled to talk about httpRange-14 >> (sigh) ... >> >> Here's my cut: >> >> Following the work I was developing earlier, I'm want to be careful to >> separate out: >> * language (protocol, protocol element) >> * descriptions of languages (dictionaries, specifications) >> * implementations (people, software, instances of HTML) >> >> And to talk about the issue without making unnecessary (and illogical) >> assumptions, avoiding >> * owner (URIs don't have owners) > > "URI ownership" is a defined term of art in AWWW: > http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-ownership > The word "owner" in this context does not mean the same thing as it does > in English. A URI does not have an "owner" in the English language > sense, but it *does* have a "URI owner" in the AWWW sense. > >> * minting (URIs aren't minted) > > This is also a term of art in web architecture, but unfortunately it > does not have a standard definition. Here is a rough definition, though > others may come up with something better: > > In the context of web architecture, "minting" a URI means > creating a URI. It usually also implies that the URI owner > (in the AWWW sense) has authorized a particular definition > for that URI, which may range from being empty (i.e., no > definition at all) to very specific. > >> * binding to HTTP (communication using URIs doesn't depend on HTTP >> status codes) > > It may or may not. It depends on the conventions that the communicating > parties use. > >> * "information resource" vs." non-information resource" (an >> interesting concept but no real division) > > Agreed, though some choose to make a distinction. >> >> Dirk and Nadia want to have a conversation. >> >> 1. In the old days before the web, they could communicate in a natural >> language, English or French or some other language, using words and >> syntax they both hopefully knew and understood. There were aids for >> their understanding, dictionaries (OED, American Heritage, >> Dictionnaire de l'Académie française) and other references (oh, for >> literary or historical references), but of course, communication was >> established because they had a common language, not because they were >> using the same dictionary. >> >> And of course they could use computers and networks, sending text >> through email and instant messaging, or Dirk could leave files for >> Nadia to FTP, download and retrieve. >> >> 2. The web introduced a great set of enhancements: mark up, in a >> markup language. This allowed them to mark up text with styling, add >> images (which of course you could do in other ways), but also add >> links, using URLs. So now Dirk could not only say words in natural >> language, but could annotate words and phrases and images with >> hyperlinks which would lead the reader directly to additional >> information. A communication meant something whether or not the >> links worked (a failure that led to "404 not found" didn't suddenly >> change the meaning of a communication), but the links enhanced the >> communication, to the point where it was just as reasonable to say >> click >here< for additional information and put all the meaning in the >> link itself. >> >> XML added to the family of languages by providing a framework with >> namespaces, where a URI could indicate a namespace which then became >> the context for communication in that name space. MIME is also used to >> describe the nature of a communication to give the parties a better >> idea of what was intended. >> >> 3. Now, we wanted to enhance the nature of the communication even >> further by extending the languages of the web to include assertions, >> triples, which might be expressed as <A> <R> <B> such that perhaps >> some kinds of automated reasoning and processing could happen. That >> enhanceme (RDF) was in addition to hypertext markup, since Dirk and >> Nadia could exchange more formal expressions than those expressed in a >> natural language... it's a different framework, the links themselves >> were the communication. >> >> The use of A within <A> <R> <B> has similar properties to the link >> in >> Click <a href="A">here</a> for more information >> >> That is, if Dirk sends <A> <R> <B> to Nadia, the communication can be >> enhanced by having A, R, and B (if they are URIs) actually point to >> real information that Dirk or Nadia could use, if they're not already >> familiar with the terms. > > Hmm, kind of like looking up a definition, right? That sounds like > quite a useful convention. ;) But it seems to me that the usefulness > of that convention is highly dependent on the number of parties that > follow it. After all, if publishers don't place definitions where those > definitions can be found when users like Dirk and Nadia click on the > URIs, then users won't find those definitions. And conversely, if users > don't know that they *should* click on the URIs to find definitions, or > if they cannot tell whether the information that they retrieved *is* a > definition (because Dirk and Nadia are simply machines rather than > intelligent humans) then those definitions won't help either. > > On the other hand, if some standards organization were to Recommend that > convention, then that could significantly increase the adoption and > hence the usefulness of that convention. :) > >> This language of triples has some nice properties, but alas, it >> doesn't provide sufficient context for some purposes. If the intent is >> to talk about copyright or ownership or authorship of a work, there >> are some situations where it's not clear which URI to use in a triple, >> where "R" is "has copyright" or
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 04:12:22 UTC