[Developers] Cactus RDF: URIs

Dylan Stark dylan.stark at gmail.com
Thu Sep 7 12:02:37 CDT 2006

On 9/7/06, Erik Schnetter <schnetter at cct.lsu.edu> wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2006, at 11:03:11, Dylan Stark wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >   I would like to find out what a good naming convention would be for
> > giving URIs to the different entities we will be collecting the
> > metadata on, such as thorns and parameters. I know that in the RDF we
> > can talk about the concept of "a thorn with a name", but it could be
> > beneficial to have a URI for that concept. An example might be
> >
> >     http://www.cactuscode.org/thorn/WaveToy.
> >
> > The statement "ParameterFile activates <http://.../WaveToy>" would be
> > equivalent to "ParameterFile activates the Thorn with name 'WaveToy'.
> In the past, people have copied thorns from one repository to
> another, creating two thorns with the name name.  While this is bad
> practice, it has happened and will probably happen again.  An
> additional qualifier is needed.
> Cactus already has the concept of arrangements.  What about
>         http://www.cactuscode.org/rdf/thorn/CactusWave/WaveToy
> instead?  The "rdf" part would make sure that it does not conflict
> with any web pages that people may create, and "CactusWave" is the
> arrangement name.  So far, arrangement names have been unique.

So something like /thorn/[arrangement]/[thorn-name]. I was thinking of
a slightly more verbose
But that has more to do with a (RESTful) web interface I was planning
which would have URL paths like
    /arrangements    (a list of arrangements)
    /arrangement/[name]    (an arrangement)
    /arrangement/[name]/thorns  (a list of thorns)
   ad absurdum

> Of course, thorns change with time, so even that identifier does not
> have a static meaning.

That's true that the thorns change, it would just be a name for the
concept of the thorn. Versioning information could be maintained (in
RDF) somewhere (ideally at that address). Is there a good/clean way of
specifying what 'version' of a thorn an exe was built with? Maybe a
checkout date?

> Why is "http:" part of the URI?  This is the transport protocol, and
> the resource should be unique without it, i.e., using e.g. "ftp:" or
> "https:" instead should give the same result.

The 'http:' part is the URI scheme and is a required part of the
(absolute) URI. We could use the same URL path with 'https:' and
'ftp:' and state that they are equivalent concepts. I defaulted to
http because it is easy and recognizable.


> -erik
> --
> Erik Schnetter <schnetter at cct.lsu.edu>
> My email is as private as my paper mail.  I therefore support encrypting
> and signing email messages.  Get my PGP key from www.keyserver.net.

More information about the Developers mailing list