 | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Linked data Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Linked data |
I couldn't understand a thing. It isn't even written like a proper Wikipedia article, but more like an essay. - Sikon ( talk) 06:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I am also confused about this concept. What exactly is the difference to URLs? Aren't URLs execatly this: dereferenceable URIs? -- 85.177.199.222 ( talk) 14:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Lost me at the very beginning - "takes the form of an information resource that describes the resource that the URI identifies"? What form would that be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.187.188 ( talk) 03:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a little hopefully clarifying these points, though I believe the entry still needs work on de-jargonizing Danja ( talk) 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- The technical difference is simple and obvious, I'm just not sure how important it is! A "dereferenceable URI" is a URI that can be dereferenced, i.e. if you try and "browse to it", there's some response waiting there for you when you get there. This is quite an important distinction in some fields, XML Schema for one, the Semantic Web and the Internet of Things#Universal addressability of dumb things for another.
- It's common practice in both these fields to use the URI namespace as just that (and no more), a space in which to name things. These don't have anything "at the end of it". XML Schema in particular has two ways to indicate these names: one specifies the name (unique, carved in stone, inflexible, doesn't need to lead anywhere) and the location (where you'll be able to download a copy, may specify multiple locations, some of these might be local). RDF goes the other way - it has may cases where there are anonymous resources that are identifiable by some means (go to this named resource, look at the first child of some property of it) but that resource has never been given a specific URI of its own. As a result, this "anonymous URI" is hardly likely to be dereferenceable, as it doesn't have any existence outside of the combination of the document and some other resources.
- So it's easy to talk about what this article has to "mean" at the nuts-and-bolts technical level. Doesn't make it clear why that's important though, and the article isn't clear enough to show me. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is a terribly important tool for the "Linked Data" concept, but is totally incomprehensible to laypeople. WDavidStephenson ( talk) 03:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Why the emphasis on HTTP? Surely HTTPS, FTP and certain other protocols are just as deferencable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.120.180 ( talk) 15:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The statement:
A URI refers to the page, and when requested the web server returns a copy of it.
doesn't make sense as written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.1.16.126 ( talk) 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't a "dereferenceable URI" the same as a URL? 82.94.180.72 ( talk) 11:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
|
| This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Linked data Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Linked data |
I couldn't understand a thing. It isn't even written like a proper Wikipedia article, but more like an essay. - Sikon ( talk) 06:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I am also confused about this concept. What exactly is the difference to URLs? Aren't URLs execatly this: dereferenceable URIs? -- 85.177.199.222 ( talk) 14:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Lost me at the very beginning - "takes the form of an information resource that describes the resource that the URI identifies"? What form would that be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.187.188 ( talk) 03:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a little hopefully clarifying these points, though I believe the entry still needs work on de-jargonizing Danja ( talk) 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- The technical difference is simple and obvious, I'm just not sure how important it is! A "dereferenceable URI" is a URI that can be dereferenced, i.e. if you try and "browse to it", there's some response waiting there for you when you get there. This is quite an important distinction in some fields, XML Schema for one, the Semantic Web and the Internet of Things#Universal addressability of dumb things for another.
- It's common practice in both these fields to use the URI namespace as just that (and no more), a space in which to name things. These don't have anything "at the end of it". XML Schema in particular has two ways to indicate these names: one specifies the name (unique, carved in stone, inflexible, doesn't need to lead anywhere) and the location (where you'll be able to download a copy, may specify multiple locations, some of these might be local). RDF goes the other way - it has may cases where there are anonymous resources that are identifiable by some means (go to this named resource, look at the first child of some property of it) but that resource has never been given a specific URI of its own. As a result, this "anonymous URI" is hardly likely to be dereferenceable, as it doesn't have any existence outside of the combination of the document and some other resources.
- So it's easy to talk about what this article has to "mean" at the nuts-and-bolts technical level. Doesn't make it clear why that's important though, and the article isn't clear enough to show me. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is a terribly important tool for the "Linked Data" concept, but is totally incomprehensible to laypeople. WDavidStephenson ( talk) 03:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Why the emphasis on HTTP? Surely HTTPS, FTP and certain other protocols are just as deferencable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.120.180 ( talk) 15:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The statement:
A URI refers to the page, and when requested the web server returns a copy of it.
doesn't make sense as written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.1.16.126 ( talk) 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't a "dereferenceable URI" the same as a URL? 82.94.180.72 ( talk) 11:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)