Re: Comments solicited: "Providing and discovering definitions of URIs"

On 10/28/11 3:59 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> (stuck in my drafts folder)
>
> " The specification governing Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) [rfc3986] allows URIs to mean anything at all"
> can be read incorrectly. A spec usually "allows" something by enabling it, providing a mechanism for accomplishing it.
> of RFC 3986 does not itself enable or provide a mechanism for URIs to "mean anything at all", it just doesn't make restrictions that disallow that. ("tdb:" provides a mechanism, for example.)
>
> I’m not sure what to do with this. Maybe just "allows a URI to mean anything at all, or at least does not restrict the meaning".

A URI is an Identifier. The letters U-R-I stand for: Uniform Resource 
Identifier. Thus, is cannot mean anything. It simply means URIs can 
Identity anything.


>
>
> "To use a URI to mean something, an agent (a) selects a URI, (b) provides a definition of the URI in a manner that permits discovery by agents who encounter the URI, and (c) uses the URI."
>
> I don't agree with the order of (a) and (b). I think the order is more like (b) then (a), where (b) is "providing information which might be identified via a URI" and (a) is "putting together the URI which has the definition that leads to the meaning intended".

I really believe we are making this more complex that it needs to be. An 
Identifier is a mechanism for Identifying. A URI is an Identifier.

Kingsley
>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rees
> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:13 AM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Comments solicited: "Providing and discovering definitions of URIs"
>
> Comments solicited: "Providing and discovering definitions of URIs"
>
> (message being sent to www-tag, bcc: public-lod and semantic-web)
>
> As most of you know, the 9-year-old "httpRange-14" turf war is an
> annoyance and embarrassment in efforts to develop RDF, linked data,
> the Semantic Web, and Web architecture.
>
> As a step toward getting closure I've prepared a document (with
> the help of the TAG and the AWWSW task group):
>
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/20110625/
>
> which attempts to record the variety of approaches that have been
> offered.  I have attempted to record in a neutral way all the main
> proposals that have been put forth and present them in a way that
> permits them to be compared.  I'm sure I have failed to be completely
> neutral, but if so I'm confident you will tell me.
>
> How to actually get closure is yet to be determined, but a first step
> might be to get all the relevant information collected in this
> document so that we all know what the issues and opportunities are.
>
> This document is for informational purposes only and its future is
> not yet determined. I would have polished it a bit more but given
> current debate on www-tag and public-lod I felt it was more important
> to get it out than to tie up loose ends.
>
> Please comment on the www-tag@w3.org list. I will revise the document
> based on comments received.
>
> If you wish to review the debate please see
>    http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Webography
>
> Best
> Jonathan
>
> Abstract
>
> The specification governing Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
> [rfc3986] allows URIs to mean anything at all, and this unbounded
> flexibility is exploited in a variety contexts, notably the Semantic
> Web and Linked Data. To use a URI to mean something, an agent (a)
> selects a URI, (b) provides a definition of the URI in a manner that
> permits discovery by agents who encounter the URI, and (c) uses the
> URI. Subsequently other agents may not only understand the URI (by
> discovering and consulting the definition) but may also use the URI
> themselves.
>
> A few widely known methods are in use to help agents provide and
> discover URI definitions, including RDF fragment identifier resolution
> and the HTTP 303 redirect. Difficulties in using these methods have
> led to a search for new methods that are easier to deploy, and perform
> better, than the established ones. However, some of the proposed
> methods introduce new problems, such as incompatible changes to the
> way metadata is written. This report brings together in one place
> information on current and proposed practices, with analysis of
> benefits and shortcomings of each.
>
> The purpose of this report is not to make recommendations but rather
> to initiate a discussion that might lead to consensus on the use of
> current and/or new methods.
>
> (this is TAG ISSUE-57 / ACTION-579)
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  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