W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2005

RE: httpRange-14 Options

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:30:29 +0100
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89DEE9DDB@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "David Wood" <dwood@mindswap.org>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Hi David,

> Alistair I've recreated all these points over the past 6 months
> ... I'm worried about the social process of getting everyone 
> to adopt  
> a new solution
> ... each of the 3 philosophies feels consistent to me
> ... 1. Tim's
> ... 2. published subjects
> ... 3. "you can identify anything with http: but if it's not an  
> information resource you should do a redirect'
> I read through the remainder of the discussion, but did not see the  
> addition of a fourth point.  Perhaps there were only 3?

These were the options I thought you were referring to (I only remembered 3 also).

Point 2 should not be included here, because the practice of using PSIs is completely orthogonal to httpRange-14.  It is orthogonal because to identify something via a PSI is to identify something *indirectly* via the URI of a *subject indicator document*.  Therefore when you use PSIs you only ever directly allocate URIs to 'information resources' (sensu TimBL).  This means that option 2 should be subsumed under option 1, because it is entirely consistent.  See also [1].

Also I'd like to see points 1 and 3 clearly and concisely stated, for the record (before we all assume we're talking about the same thing, and it turns out we aren't).



> [1]  http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-minutes#item09
> Regards,
> Dave
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 16:30:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:43 UTC