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

RE: httpRange-14 Options

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:00:34 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050616125121.035a41d8@127.0.0.1>
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

At 05:30 PM 6/16/2005 +0100, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
>> ... 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'
...
>Point 2 should not be included here, because the practice of using PSIs is completely orthogonal to httpRange-14. ... 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.

Technically 2 is consistent with 1 but I suggest it not be folded in with 1.

An important semantics of PSI is the indirection semantics.  This includes
(a) there _must be_ a document and (b) that document _must_ provide
sufficient instruction to a human reader to recognize the intended subject.

Indirection is not an essential feature of the #fragid philosophy.  While it
would not be considered Best Practice (I hope) for there to be no
"information resource" at the URI, the #fragid philosophy does not
require such an information resource  Nor does the notion of a human
reader consuming the content of such an information resource affect
whether the full URI is acceptable model-wise to name the intended
subject.
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 17:00:49 UTC

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