On Thu, November 15, 2012 18:16, Duane Nickull wrote:
> Actually, to be more specific, they are a parent class of pointer that are
> represented as strings that identify resources in the web. (01)
This is true of URLs (uniform resource locators). John was referring
to URIs (uniform resource identifiers) which are a union of URLs and
URNs (uniform resource names) [See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:URI_Euler_Diagram_no_lone_URIs.svg]. (02)
> URL's,
> commonly used on the web, have both a location and a protocol associated
> with them as minimal (http is default if you type in an IP address). (03)
Yes, but this does not apply to the URNs which are not also URLs. (04)
> Alternatively, you can add actions or K-V pairs to them:
> http://www.ontolog-forum.org?action=post_irregularly&key1=value1&key2=value2
>
> I'll let the RESTafarians chime on here if needed.
>
> Duane Nickull (05)
> On 2012-11-15 2:47 PM, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 7:08 AM, John F Sowa wrote: (06)
>>> Unfortunately, RDF uses untyped triples of URIs. You need
>>> to add more triples to specify what each of those URIs points to.
>>> ... An even better notation would used typed triples, such as (07)
>>> {T1:V1, T2:V2, T3:V3} (08)
>>> This could be translated to RDF, but it would expand to five triples.
>>> So the type labels often get lost along the way. (09)
>>What?? The Web does not a "type" to specify what a URI points to. (010)
Yes, Pat, Neither the Web, RDF, nor OWL type what a *URL* points to.
I understand that John is saying that because *URIs* are passed around
and may not point to anything and URLs may not point to definitions
that specify the types of their semantic content that it would be better
to use a notation that specifies the types of the URIs at some level
so that that information is present with each tuple (i'm not sure why
he restricted this to triples) that references the URI. (011)
>> URIs are Web addresses in themselves (sometimes a bit more,
>> but *at least* a Web address.) (012)
As i noted above, this is true of URLs, but not non URL URIs. However,
even for URIs expressed as URLs, there is no requirement for there
to be anything accessible at the specified location. <b>"There doesn't have
to be any <i>there</i> there."</b> (013)
In such instances, the mere use of a URL as a URI does not provide
any guarantee that any type information is available on the web
for the URI. (014)
-- doug foxvog (015)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (016)
|
