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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:30:26 -0400
Message-ID: <4F860602.9050705@openlinksw.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
On 4/11/12 5:25 PM, Yves Lafon wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> httpRange-14 is about trying to give a meaning to URIs other than the 
>> meaning that derives naturally from the interpretation of the URI in 
>> an a@href. Thus, I think httpRange-14 is based on a presumption that 
>> is false.
>> The "ni:" scheme is about naming content which is static. If the 
>> content changes then the hash changes, and so the name no longer 
>> applies.
> I would say immutable rather than static, but yes, hashes can only 
> identify immutable content, which might still be useful in some cases 
> (ex: distribution of content known to be constant over time, like dtds
> linked from W3C Recommendations / network resilience).
>> Meaning and persistence are intimately tied together: if you ask for 
>> a name to be "persistent", what you're asking to persist is its 
>> meaning. If you ask what a name "means", you're asking about what of 
>> its mapping to meaning you want to persist.
> "Everything has been said, provided words do not change their 
> meanings, and meanings their words."
>> Anyway: you can't name "things" with hashes, you can only name static 
>> content.
> Yes, so I consider this orthogonal to hr14, but still useful for other 
> issues.

HttpRange-14 is about qualifying and defining the use of URIs. What are 
they, and how should they be used, bearing in mind the Web already has a 
massive installed base.

Assigning names to realm agnostic *things* or *entities* is the crux of 
the matter. Nothing wrong with the current findings, we just need to 
improve on the overall the narrative.

People already use hashless URLs (Locators) as Names for Web Resources. 
Thus, we need clear guidelines for unambiguous Naming conventions that 
cater to other *things* or *entities* not of the Web medium. This won't 
eliminate ambiguity per se., but it will eliminate ambiguity within the 
confines of specific systems e.g., Linked Data.

Please note, this  is all about generic 'Names' and 'Data' as opposed to 
'Locations' and 'Data'. That's why Van's presentation is so relevant to 



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 Wednesday, 11 April 2012 22:30:51 UTC

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