> From: Matthias Samwald
> . . .
> 3) What current proposals about the 'resolution' of URIs do
> is trying to force four different things into a single URI:
I don't know which proposals you mean, but forcing these into the same
URI is definitely not what the TAG recommends in the WebArch[1], e
Matthias,These points wrt LS URIs resonate quite well with me... Continuing on with this reasoning, it would appear the only difference URI resolution offers (for pure RDF data only) is getting back a set of RDF statements from the URI authority. This does not represent all the existing RDF triples
Xiaoshu,
The idea behind the short URI statements is to get some input as to what
people's thoughts are regarding URIs. The short statements are therefore
just a tool for helping us to generate a document. They will not form
part of a URI.
The short statements are being collecting on the Bi
1) Most URIs on the Semantic Web are symbols for things, e.g. a concept or a
physical object
2) Things like concepts and objects cannot be 'resolved' through the internet.
3) What current proposals about the 'resolution' of URIs do is trying to force
four different things into a single URI:
a.
--Susie,
> John Barkley has proposed the following examples of short statement:
> 1. Identify MIME Types of URIs.
> 2. Identify versions of URIs
> 3. URIs should dereference to something, even if it is only
> documentation,e.g., rdfs:comment 4. Use LSIDs
I might missed a bit of background, but
> "SS" == Susie Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SS> John Barkley has proposed the following examples of short
SS> statement:
SS> 1. Identify MIME Types of URIs.
SS> 2. Identify versions of URIs
SS> 3. URIs should dereference to something, even if it is only
SS> documentatio
It was decided during a recent BioRDF call, that a good way forward in
the creation of a URI document would be to collect short recommended
practice statements from individuals. This would help us to more easily
see where we agree and where there is controversy.
Please either post your shor