Jonathan Rees wrote:
This isn't academic. The Library of Congress trashes the http: scheme
[1] in the same way that the LSID spec does - they say it's no good
because URIs are locators (first answer) instead of "identifiers"
(references; second answer). The justification for using http: for
lite
On 10/12/07, Pat Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * If a network resource responds to a GET request with a 2xx
> response, then that URI must be understood as referring to that
> network resource.
>
> >Oddly, this rule doesn't tell you which network resource is
> >referenced; it could be one tha
As usual, I like your explanation very much. It borders on sophistry,
but that doesn't bother me much, or won't until my next conversation
with someone who's upset about the use of http: URIs to refer to
things that aren't network resources.
I've copied your email to the wiki page, reformatted
On Oct 11, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
URI1 the first URI
endpthe http endpoint identified by URI1
URI2 the URI to which endp redirects URI1
redir the http endpoint identified by URI2
potato the potato which (we all know) URI refers to
Then the following should hold, accordin
I think we are in agreement here, but let me blab on to make sure.
On 10/12/07, Xiaoshu Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathan,
> > The httpRange-14 resolution [1] is about identification (of a thing
> > by/to an http server), not reference.
> "httpRange-14" is an *engineer* but not a *philos
Jonathan,
The httpRange-14 resolution [1] is about identification (of a thing
by/to an http server), not reference.
"httpRange-14" is an *engineer* but not a *philosophical/ontological*
solution because a server response code such as 200/303/404 etc. do not
tell you more about what you alread
On Oct 11, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
URI1 the first URI
endpthe http endpoint identified by URI1
URI2 the URI to which endp redirects URI1
redir the http endpoint identified by URI2
potato the potato which (we all know) URI refers to
Then the following should hold, according
I wish I could not worry. Pat has put me at ease, so I've added his
idea as a 5th option. But your implicit question is why do I care. The
reason is that I want to win over various ornery parties to the
application of the http: scheme to the semantic web, if it makes
sense, or abandon it, if not.
As usual, I like your explanation very much. It borders on sophistry,
but that doesn't bother me much, or won't until my next conversation
with someone who's upset about the use of http: URIs to refer to
things that aren't network resources.
I've copied your email to the wiki page, reformatted a
It could of course do this itself were it not for the unfortunate
fact that, because of http-range-14, this would probably confuse
you into thinking that it actually was the potato.
Actually it wouldn't confuse you, of course. But it might confuse
some poor dumb SemWeb reasoning engine.
For URI fanatics only...
For the purposes of my URI project I wanted to know just what IANA had
to say about the use of http: URIs, so I did some poking around. I
report (neutrally, I hope) on what I found here:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Tasks/URI_Best_Practices/Recommenda
Jonathan Rees wrote:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Tasks/URI_Best_Practices/Recommendations/StatusOfHttpScheme
4 :-)
For URI fanatics only...
For the purposes of my URI project I wanted to know just what IANA had
to say about the use of http: URIs, so I did some poking around. I
report (neutrally, I hope) on what I found here:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Tasks/URI_Best_Practices/Recommendati
13 matches
Mail list logo
