RE: Assumptions about URIs
>Bent Rasmussen wrote, > > Perhaps the central question would be: > > > > - "Does the URI 'http://www.w3.org' identify an > > organisation called W3C or a location on the Web?" > >I think I must fall in camp D, because although I'm temperamentally >inclined towards camp B, my answer to this question would be >"Potentially both, and a great many other things besides". Interesting. But does it make sense not to choose? As an example let's say (a) <urn:isbn:...> <urn:concept:author> <http://example.com/mister.x> "the author of a book (...) is the location 'http://example.com/mister.x' but is also the person which I thought of as I picked the URL." I mean, wouldn't you have to choose between (i) "it's a person, not a location, damnit", or (ii) "it's a location not a person, damnit" :) Otherwise you'd be making two statements, wouldn't you? If you choose (i) then you disregard the semantics of the namespace, i.e. for example that the TEL scheme refers to telephone numbers or that the HTTP scheme refers to hypertexts at locations. This seems important, for example some vocabularies are used to make statements about home pages while other vocabularies are used to make statements about things that users "think of" as the resource of a URI. So some seem to say that HTTP/TEL/..., it doesn't matter because we can say the resource of "tel:2342343" is a person or the resource of "mailto:x@x..." is a space craft; others say that HTTP is for one thing, TEL is for another etc. Don't addresses in the TEL name space *necessarily* identify phone numbers? So, some systems have statements about keys that are themselves data and in addition that data exists in a context, a name space. The context implies types (telephone numbers, books, hypertext locations, etc.) and the keys imply instances (certain telephone numbers, certain books and certain hypertext locations). In other words we've got two sets of data, the data that is apparent to a knowledge representation system (statements about the keys) and the data that is not apparent to the knowledge representation system (the keys themselves and their contexts). One could probably use HTTP to specify many other types; e.g. - "http://www.example.com/tel/2345345" But this goes against practice and recommendations it would seem. And since URNs may also have network retrievable representations it might be better to use that. Either that or the name space context is truly irrelevant to the semantics of the resources. And its still interesting that the key is itself data, but that this data is inaccessible to the system unless some special treatment is going on. Of course one can use things like rdf:type to assert the type of the resource and thereby override or contradict the authority and the creator -- is this the solution? >Cheers, > > >Miles > >-- >Miles Sabin InterX >Internet Systems Architect 27 Great West Road >+44 (0)20 8817 4030 Middx, TW8 9AS, UK >msabin@i... http://www.interx.com/ >[...] _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format