Actually,
On Aug 18, 2008, at 7:26 AM, Hammond, Tony wrote:
> I must agree with Karen:
>
>> URIs are for machines. Taking care of the humans will require more
>> than
>> a URI. We need to define what that "more" is and how we will make
>> it work.
>
> But this is also a key weakness of URIs as identifiers because they
> can be just too darn long.
>
Actually, yes, this where "URI's are for machines" comes in, because,
when it comes to a RDF Resource on the web available under a specific
URI, it should be the responsibility of the application to deal with
the resolution and representation of that URI to the user...
For instance...
http://lcsh.info/sh2002000569
and its rdf/xml representation
http://lcsh.info/sh2002000569.rdf
Can be used by applications predictably. The labels can be gleaned
from the skos:predLabel or an rdf:label if included to give the user
adequate confirmation of their choice. Applications are becoming
savvy enough to pick up such data and present it in an informative
and enabling manner.
There is a very interesting recent post by David Hyunh about his
latest work at Metaweb that really shows off how, if adapted,
properly linked open data using URI will enable the web to be able to
do discovery the same way only well architected / closed applications
currently do.
http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2008/08/14/parallax-a-better-
interface-for-freebase/
The library world really needs to become more agile regarding
adopting these new practices/technologies, this movement (SW/LoD) is
evolving outside of their domain and has a much bigger target (the
entire www). The tools to support the expression of and
interoperability of metadata are no longer exclusive to the library
domain.
-Mark
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark R. Diggory - DSpace Developer and Systems Manager
MIT Libraries, Systems and Technology Services
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Home Page: http://purl.org/net/mdiggory/homepage
|