Re: URIQA!

There is definitely value in having a defined way (or perhaps 
several) to get specific information about a URI. For example, an 
agent reading my FOAF file might note that my homepage has the type 
<http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/2002/web-threads/Weblog> and be able 
to use a URI query agent to learn about its definition rather than 
trying to download it.

I'm less clear about the need for a new HTTP header. As I see it, (1) 
the concise, bounded description of a URI reference is itself a 
resource worthy of a URI and (2) all the HTTP headers in the world 
won't help you get information about 
<http://example.org/document#fragment> or <news:foo@bar>. I would 
rather use <http://sw.org?uri=(encoded_stuff)> than a straight URI 
with an extra header.

(For a long term solution, what we would want is a way to describe a 
classes of web services. The class would define functions like 
concise_bounded_description(uri) and individual services would bind 
that to a particular set of URIs.)

-- 
Dave Menendez - [email protected] - http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/