RE: URI resolver was Re: RDDL and XML Schemas Proposed Recommendation

[Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>]

Michael Mealling wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 02:33:38PM +1000, Justin Couch wrote:
> > Jonathan Borden wrote:

> >
> > > Things like RDF allow you to make statements "about" resources without
> > > needing to resolve the URI.
> >
> > Well that is an invalid statement. It is easy to prove it to be false
> > because you may say something and then have the resolver tell you it is
> > completely different.

as i said. per RFC 2396 when you resolve a URI you get back an entity not a
resource. you are conflating resource and entity. this is a common
misconception. Using RDF you can make statements about URIs that cannot be
disproven by resolving the URI -- indeed there is no guarentee nor even
intention that a URI _can_ be resolved.

That is, these can only strictly be limited to a
> > collection of hints until an authorative answer is given by actually
> > resolving a resource. For example, that URN above, your RDF says that it
> > is a comic book. If you resolved it you would find it is a technical
> > book about Java network programming.

Suppose this RDF is published by Amazon. And if I resolved this URN via
Amazon I assume a book would arrive at my doorstep. _I would return the
book_. If Amazon were to disagree I would call my Visa company and complain.
If I got nowhere I would call the FBI, my lawyer etc.

Your concept of authority is interesting but I don't accept it.

>
> And this is an important point. The URI Resolution application finds
> _authoritative_ information about the URI and/or its Resource.

Authoritative per _whom_?

If
> you want to find information that is simply someone elses opinion about
> the URI then that is what a few of us are calling Contextualization.
> Its the resolution and/or use of metadata about a URI within some
> non-authoritative context. But that is a different story....
>
> > > The resource that a URI identifies is distinct
> > > from the "entity" that the URI may resolve to from time to
> time (the entity
> > > is not guarenteed to be constant e.g. a stock price --very
> unfortunately
> > > these days).

> >If the URI resolves to an instantaneous stock
> > price, then find a better resolver.

huh? this is how the web works.

why should I confuse "http://example.org/stockprice?symbol=INTC

with "data:text/plain,$5.0" ?

The resource the first URI identifies is  "the stock price of Intel", the
resource the second URI identifies is "$5.0" ... at one point in time these
URIs resolved to the same entity.

>
> Yep. Its the old story of does the URI identify the thing in the box
> or the box itself. The answer is that you should have three URIs: one
> for the box, one for whatever is currently in the box. and possibly
> several for the thing that is the contents. If your URI identifies
> an abstract thing that can change its representation then you have
> to deal with that in your application or pick a different URI.
>

Certainly you can have a "data:" URI that need not be resolved to ascertain
what its 'contents' are. And so you can easily represent the 'contents of
the box' rather than the box to use your terminology. But those are two
different URIs. Or many different URIs depending on what you want to do.

-Jonathan