Sherman Monroe wrote:
David wrote:
[...] For example, when I search for Microsoft on Google, the
first result not only IS what I want, but also LOOKs like what I
want. I can make the decision to click on it within maybe 1 or 2
seconds. The URL "www.microsoft.com <http://www.microsoft.com>"
in that search result is perhaps the most convincing element, as
I know only *the* Microsoft can possibly own that domain. (This
will be a challenge for any SW search engine, because no-one can
own any URI, and so, seeing a URI alone means pretty much
nothing. That's one of the main differences between URL and URI,
which is usually swept under the rug.)
David,
I agree with Tim that we can build on the HTTP infrastructure to
expose the ownership of URIs. To me, ownership of a URI (if it is a
HTTP-based URI) means it is owned by the people who control the page
at that URI. So for a Wikipedia URL, the owners are the folks that
maintain that page.
Think: URI Space or Data Space. Using or minting URIs in the Linked Data
realm implies the "authority" aspect is functional (which ultimately
contributes to resolution when de-referencing). A URI is more than its
constituent literals (which are inherently superficial).
I also think that owning a URI in the semantic web has about as much
value as owning your name in real life. In otherwords, I can't control
what statements people make about me in real life. Futhermore, as a
person looking for info about a thing, I may not necessarily be
interested in what the thing says about itself (e.g. I need
description/rating/reviews of a plumber for due diligence purposes).
It's valuable in WWW to own a URL because you can control what a
person sees when they go to it, but in URI, you can't control what
folks see when they browse it's linked data.
Yes, so apropos Tim's comments above:
You have a Name and people "refer to you" by that Name. If they want to
give you a *handshake* (in person), then they need the address (URL
aspect of HTTP URI) of the physical embodiment (a negotiated
representation) associated with your Name.
Why can't the semantic web track 'whois' information of domain
ownership, and maybe even SLL certificate information, of sites
and be aware of the social relationships, and use them
intelligently? (perhaps more safely than a human who will be
confused by http://www.microsoft.com.1000ripyouoff.crime/ ?) .
A very plausible idea. My question is though, which has the most
authority, the owner of the URI, or the 'crowd' using it? I tend to
think that the most trusted statements come from the folks referencing
it (I guess this is the logic behind Google's algorithms).
Who has the most authority over "Sherman Monroe", and why? Who
determines what manifestation receives the *handshake* from me based on
the Name: "Sherman Monroe" ? In real life, I will disambiguate using a
combination of Type and Properties of the Entity Named: "Sherman
Monroe", so I know I am shaking hands with whom I know to be Named:
"Sherman Monroe".
It is true that the delegation of information within a site is not
typically made explicit (though it could be with site metadata).
But there is in general a system of ownership of URIs, it seems
to me, and it is important on the SW in the social processes by
which different groups get to define what different terms mean.
Exactly, and HTTP-based authority is definitely belongs in that system
of ownership, but as I stated, there is something to be mentioned
about 'the crowd' being able to be authorities of URIs also.
Remember your Name, and the fact that it is distinct from your physical
manifestation (which is also inherently mobile) .
Entity Type and Entity Properties enable us all to Reason about Things
that have Names in a Linked Data graph. This is also why OWL is
ultimately important to Linked Data. My Agent will one day shake your
Agent's hands instead of us doing it in person, with the same degree of
accuracy :-)
Kingsley
-sherman
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
