- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:30:53 -0400 (EDT)
- To: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, xml-uri@w3.org
On Sat, 3 Jun 100, John Cowan wrote: > Tim Berners-Lee scripsit: > > > It also prevents the namespace URI being usefully dereferenced, > > as dereferencing it will get only the namespace name, and never any other > > information about the namespace. > > Granted, but since there is no guarantee what you might get > (an XML Schema? an RDF Schema? XLinks to various things? Human-readable > HTML? Nothing at all?), this seems less than useful. If you want > to know things about a namespace, discover some RDF that tells > you about it. I think 'less than useful' is a little unfair here, though RDF would be one of my favourite things to find when dereferencing... There are all sorts of things I'd be happy to find when I dereference (aka ask the Web about) the URI of some namespace. Sometimes HTML would be just fine. Othertimes an MP3 might suit, or RDF, or DTD or XML Schema. Language and content negotiation might get me different views of the namespace in different contexts; access control constraints, micropayments etc might also control what I get to see (eg. consider a huge thesaurus with a very natural representation as an RDF graph - these things cost money and come with usage constraints). All this I see as very useful, if a little chaotic. The thing that hangs together this (typically weblike) heterogeneity is that whatever we find when we dereference some namespace is authoritative. Whether I find HTML, MP3, a public key (hmmm...) or XML/RDF when I dereference a namespace URI, I should be able to treat that data as coming from the owner/manager of that Web vocabulary, and therefore something that can tell me something of the meaning of that vocabulary. The usefulness comes from the notion of an authoritative source of information about the namespace. Finding RDF there might be nice but then there's still a vast range of things you might find out about when reading the RDF, so we're still faced with heterogeneity (albeit in a more machine-friendly form). --d
Received on Saturday, 3 June 2000 16:30:55 UTC