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

Re: URIs, used in RDF, that do not have associated documentation

From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:53:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGnGFM+j7htLi3w36Uz+W=YVmrTWbv0=Zj+R=_GNYXJe+LzWPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: トーレ エリクソン <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
2012/3/26 トーレ エリクソン <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>:
> Jonathan,
>
> I hope you don't mind me repeating my offline response to your other
> mail here as well.
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net> wrote:
>> The question arises often: What are examples of RDF in the wild, where
>> URIs are used that do not have associated documentation (i.e. RDF that
>> tells you what the URI refers to)?  That is, what are some situations
>> where the httpRange-14(a) rule might apply in practice - where linked
>> data meets the non-RDF Web, so to speak?
>
> And I would like to check if this lack of RDF documentaion really is
> a problem. If not, one of the justifications for httpRange-14 is
> nullified.
>
>> Remember that I've stated my dismay that httpRange-14(a) says "is an
>> information resource" rather than addressing the ambiguity mentioned
>> in Fielding's email (as illustrated by the Flickr and Jamendo cases).
>> httpRange-14(a) as written doesn't really help, except that its
>> authors and nearly everyone else have interpreted it to resolve the
>> ambiguity in a particular way - that the URI refers to what you
>> retrieve (generically if you will), not to what is described by what
>> you retrieve. This interpretation *has* been helpful because it lets
>> you use these RDF-less URIs in RDF and be understood. That the
>> resolution didn't say what was meant was a colossal screwup IMO. But
>> let's set that aside and just look at the question.
>
> Saying that the URI refers to what you retreive is not consistent with
> the HTTP specification, in which resources and representations are
> clearly seprate entities. Saying that they are equivalent confounds them,
> and one of the axioms of RDF is that two things should not use the same
> URI.

Nobody who has followed this discussion is saying this. Not me, not
Tim, not anyone. (I think Ian Hickson said it once, but he's not
involved in this discussion.) If this is what you think then I'm not
sure how we can discuss this matter.

My views on the matter are put down here:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/latest/
Tim has written about this as well:
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Generic.html

I have never claimed that the generic resource idea follows from the
HTTP spec. I have just said that, empirically speaking, many people
writing metadata assume that this is how things work. It would
therefore be a good idea to codify the practice, or at least avoid
making statements that discourage it.

You may disagree with the ideas, but don't claim I'm not aware of how
HTTP or Web architecture work.

Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 11:53:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:43 UTC