LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  April 2009

CODE4LIB April 2009

Subject:

Re: resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

From:

Alexander Johannesen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:07:02 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (152 lines)

Hiya,

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 01:10, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It stands in the way of using them in the fully realized sem web vision.

Ok, I'm puzzled. How? As the SemWeb vision is all about first-order
logic over triplets, and the triplets are defined as URIs, if you can
pop something into a URI you're good to go. So how is it that SuDoc
doesn't fit into this, as you *can* chuck it in a URI? I said it was
unfriendly to the Web, not impossible.

> It does NOT stand in the way of using them in many useful ways that I can
> and want to use them _right now_.

Ah, but then go fix it.

> Ways which having a URI to refer to them
> are MUCH helped by. Whether it can resolve or not (YOU just made the point
> that a URI doesn't actually need to resolve, right? I'm still confused by
> this having it both ways -- URIs don't need to resolve, but if you're URIs
> don't resolve than you're doing it wrong. Huh?)

C'mon, it ain't *that* hard. :) URIs as identifiers is fine, having
them resolve as well is great. What's so confusing about that?

> , if you have a URI for a
> SuDoc you can use it in any infrastructure set up to accept, store, and
> relate URIs. Like an OpenURL rft_id, and, yeah, like RDF even.  You can make
> statements about a SuDoc if it has a URI, whether or not it resolves,
> whether or not SuDoc itself is 'web friendly'.  One step at a time.
>
> This is my frustration with semantic web stuff, making it harder to do
> things that we _could_ do right here and now, because it violates a fantasy
> of an ideal infrastructure that we may never actually have.

Huh? The people who made SuDoc didn't make it web friendly, and thus
the SemWeb stuff is harder to do because it lives on the web? (And
chucking your meta data into HTML as MF or RDF snippets ain't that
hard, it just require a minimum of knowledge)

> There are business costs, as well as technical problems, to be solved to
> create that ideal fantasy infrastructure. The business costs are _real_....

No more real than the cost currently in place. The thing is that a lot
of people see the traditional cost disappear with the advent of SemWeb
and the new costs heavily reduced.

>>  Also, having a unified resolver for
>> SuDoc isn't hard, can be at a fixed URL, and use a parameter for
>> identifiers. You don't need to snoop the non-parameterized section of
>> an URI to get the ID's ;
>
> Okay, Alex, why don't you set this up for us then?

Why? I don't give a rats bottom about SuDoc, don't need it, think it's
poorly designed, and gives me nothing in life. Why should I bother?
(Unless I'm given money for it, then I'll start caring ... :)

> And commit to providing
> it persistently indefinitely? Because I don't have the resources to do that.

Who's behind SuDoc, and are they serious about their creation? That's
the people you should send your anger instead.

>  And for the use cases I am confronted with, I don't _need_ it, any old URI,
> even not resolvable, will do--yes, as long as I can recognize it as a SuDoc
> and extract the bare SuDoc out of it.

So what's the problem with just making some stuff up? If you can do
your thing in a vacuum I don't fully understand your problem with the
SemWeb stuff? If you don't want it, don't use it.

> Which you say I shouldn't be doing
> (while others say that's a mis-reading of those docs to think I shouldn't be
> doing it)

No, I think this one is the subtle difference between a URL and a URI.

> but avoiding doing that would raise the costs of my software
> quite a bit, and make the feature infeasible in the first place. Business
> costs and resources _matter_.

As with anything on the Web, you work with what you got, and if you
can fix and share your fix, we all will love you for it. I seriously
don't think I understand what you're getting at here; it's been this
way since the Web popped into existance, and don't really want it to
be any other way.

>> No it's not; if you design your system RESTfully (which, indeed, HTTP
>> is) then the discovery part can be fast, cached, and using URI
>> templates embedded in HTTP responses, fully flexible and fit for your
>> purposes.
>
> These URIs are
> _external_ URIs from third parties, I have no control over whether they are
> designed RESTfully or not.

Not sure I follow this one. There are no good or bad RESTful URIs,
just URIs. REST is how your framework work with the URIs.

> In the meantime, I'll continue trying to balance functionality,
> maintainability, future expansion, and the programming and hardware
> resources available to me, same as I always do, here in the real world when
> we're building production apps, not R&D experiments

My day job is to balance functionality, maintainability, future
expansion, and the programming and hardware resources available to me,
same as I always do, here in the real world when we're building
production apps ... and I'm using Topic Maps and SemWeb technologies.
Is there something I'm doing which degrades my work to an "R&D
experiment", something I should let my customers know, that they're
not *really* using *real* products?

> where we don't have
> complete control over the entire environment we operate in. You telling me
> that everything would work great _if only_ everyone in the whole world that
> I need to inter-operate with did things the way you say they should -- does
> absolutely nothing for me.

Don't recalling saying stupid things like that, no.

> And this, again, is my frustration with many of these semantic web arguments
> I'm hearing

Instead of listening to rumours, why not jump in and build something
WemWebby to give it a serious go? Sure as hell the library world could
use an infusion of SemWeb kool-aid.

> -- describing an ideal fantasy world that doesn't exist, but
> insisting we act as if it does, even if that means putting barriers in the
> way of actually getting things done.

Sorry that *my* real world seems like such a fantasy world to you, and
by this fact alone I don't quite know how to respond. You're basically
telling me that what I do for a living is a sham, it won't work, it's
all wrong, it's harder than it needs to be, it doesn't play nice with
you and / or your tools ... and yet I've got over 30 years of software
development experience, and I've been in the SemWeb realm in parallel
to the "normal" one for over 10 of them, earning my livelihood that
way.

You tell me; how am *I* wrong? What am *I* doing wrong which you
clearly are not?


Regards,

Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager