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 17:34:59 +0100
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89DEE9DDC@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "David Wood" <dwood@mindswap.org>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Sorry, forgot to add ref [1] ...

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005May/0004.html

---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
> (Alistair)
> Sent: 16 June 2005 17:30
> To: David Wood; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: httpRange-14 Options
> 
> 
> 
> 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).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > [1]  http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-minutes#item09
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 16:35:04 UTC

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