On 11/12/10 11:51 AM, Lars Heuer wrote:
Hi Kingsley,
[...]
An example:
<http://www.amazon.com/Identity-Crisis-Brad-Meltzer/dp/1401204589/>
returns 200 with no machine-readable data (like RDFa).
Methinks RDFa is machine readable. The machine simply needs to
understand RDFa. Thus, if the user agent is committed to RDFa, it should
be able to interpret RDFa content; giving the content an option to
clarify matters re. whether an IRI is Name or Address.
Of course RDFa is machine readable. My example was HTML *without*
RDFa.
Ah! misread "no machine-readable data (like RDFa).." :-)
If I use the
identifier today, it has to be interpreted as "I talk about that
particular IRI (an HTML document)".
No, that's only true if you interpret what HTTP is accurately relaying
to you re. your quest for a Document, as the end of the matter.
You to HTTP Server: GET me a Document at URL
HTTP Server: Found it (200 OK) or look somewhere else (30X).
[...]
I guess you didn't understand the example. Maybe I didn't explain well
enough, though.
Misread as per comments above.
[...]
Again, my response stands. That's the case re. Virtuoso. You are saying:
I haven't experienced that. Hence my insistence re. Virtuoso.
A product cannot be the answer of the deeper problem.
I am not saying a product is the answer to a deeper problem. I am
saying, a product exists that demonstrates how a problem can be solved :-)
Anyway, the problem of identifying subjects via IRIs is rather old
(see [1] for one example) and it seems that there is no appealing
solution yet (leaving Topic Maps aside for the moment)
It's old, but you can make a statement about an entity in the Amazon
data space by just tacking on "#this" to the URL (Address) thereby
making it a Name. Then say whatever about it in your linked data space.
[1]<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI>
Best regards,
Lars
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
