- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:18:23 +0200
- To: distobj@acm.org
- Cc: www-talk@w3.org, uri@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > Sent: 16 November, 2001 16:45 > To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere) > Cc: www-talk@w3.org; uri@w3.org > Subject: Re: What is at the end of the namespace? > > > > > The HTTP > > > specification > > > can only talk about those aspects of the protocol that > are relevant to > > > HTTP. > > > > You've just summed up, IMO, the whole issue in a nutshell. The > > HTTP URI is relevant only to the semantics of the HTTP protocol. > > And the HTTP protocol is for *access* of concrete web resources. > > Earlier you suggested that "brilliance" was abstract, yet I happen > to have a URI for it here; > > http://www.markbaker.ca/2001/11/Brilliance/ No, that's a URL to retrieve a definition of the abstract concept 'BRILLIANCE' from a particular web location. The fact that you have a clever redirect does not make the URL any more suitable a representation of the abstract concept than http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=brilliance. Because it is an HTTP URL, if it *didn't* resolve to "something" then you are violating the expectations and intuitions inferred by its association with the HTTP protocol, which is for accessing "things". I.e. <rdf:Description rdf:about="voc://patrick.stickler@nokia.com/concepts/brilliance"> <foo:definitionOf rdf:resource="http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=brilliance"/> </rdf:Description> could be one way I could point to a definition of "BRILLIANCE" as *I* conceive it, though I may choose some other definition, or multiple definitions, as I see fit. (I'll be submitting an I-D for the the 'voc:' URP scheme shortly... and if you don't know what a URP is, don't worry, I'll be submitting an I-D that explains that too... They should be under your tree by Xmas ;-) Patrick
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 06:18:37 UTC