Re: Naming things with hashes (not #, but e.g. md5)

On 4/11/12 3:00 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 4/11/12 1:46 PM, David Booth wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 13:09 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> [ . . . ]
>>> Aren't we looking for a clear *definition* of what a URI actually is ?
>>>   And then following that, firming up on how a URI can be used to
>>> Identify/Name referents that happen to be realm agnostic  *things* or
>>> *entities* .
>>>
>> Yes, that's the part that we're trying to nail down now:
>>
>>   - An RDF statement author needs to know what conventions to follow when
>> writing RDF statements, in order to write RDF statements that RDF
>> consumers will be likely to "understand".  (And by "understand" I mean
>> that the RDF consumer obtains, a target URI in the statement, the URI
>> definition that the RDF statement author intended when writing the
>> statement.)
>>
>>   - An RDF consumer needs to know what conventions to follow if he/she/it
>> wishes to discover what URI definition the RDF statement author used
>> when writing that RDF statement.
>
> Problem is that RDF has never covered that. On the other hand, Linked 
> Data does.
>
> As you can see, conflating RDF and Linked Data has created a unique 
> set of mercurial problems. These problems are the fundamental reasons 
> why I've always pushed back on point #3 from the more recent edition 
> of TimBL's Linked Data meme [1]. The original meme didn't pull RDF and 
> SPARQL (which are both implementation details) into the conversation, 
> implicitly.
>
> Linked Data is a specific application of the RDF data model that is 
> actually representation syntax agnostic. Many don't buy the separation 
> of RDF the model and its collection of data representation syntaxes.
>
>> Furthermore, if the conventions involve the role of "URI owner" -- and
>> not everyone thinks they should -- then:
>>
>> - The URI owner needs to know what conventions to follow, in order to
>> provide a URI definition that is likely to be used by RDF statement
>> authors and RDF consumers.
>
> But I really think you are speaking about Linked Data rather than RDF.
>
> RDF rules should be crystal clear in the RDF specs. Linked Data 
> doesn't have a spec per se., but TimBL's original meme is a safe 'best 
> practices guide' that provides foundation for the kind of 
> standardization I see taking shape [2][3].
>
> So back to my point -- excerpted above -- we need to clearly define 
> what a URI is what what kinds of realm agnostic *things* or *entities* 
> it can name, and how :-)
>
> Links:
>
> 1. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/02/ -- Linked Data Basic Profile 1.0
> 2. http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter -- Linked Data Platform (LDP) 
> Working Group Charter .
>>
>>
>

The list above should have read:

1. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html  - latest edition of 
TimBL's Linked Data meme .
2. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/02/ -- Linked Data Basic Profile 1.0 .
3. http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter -- Linked Data Platform (LDP) 
Working Group Charter .

-- 

Regards,

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