- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:05:34 -0600
- To: "Massimo Marchiori" <massimo@w3.org>
- Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
On Nov 6, 2004, at 9:29 PM, Massimo Marchiori wrote: > [...] > Major point: formally speaking, the definition of "resource" > as it is now equals to a non-definition. The class/set "resource" is unconstrained, true, but... [...] > Some consequences: all of these statements: > the "Good practice: Identify with URIs" good practice in 2.l > The "Constraint: URIs Identify a Single Resource" in 2.2 > The "Good practice: Avoiding URI aliases" in 2.3.1 > The "Good practice: Consistent URI usage" in 2.3.1 > The "Good practice: Reuse URI schemes" in 2.4 > The "Good practice: URI opacity" in 2.5 > The "Principle: Safe retrieval" in 3.4 > The "Good practice: Consistent representation" in 3.5.1 > The "Good practice: Link identification in 4.4" > > have no formal meaning at all. Not so. "point" is not constrained in geometry, but I don't think you would say that Euclid's 5 postulates have no formal meaning, would you? p.s. > Didn't have time so far to send some comments, and so as the > time is over, sending this just for the record, i.e. *no formal > reply is at all expected*. Last call review is over, but proposed recommendation review is underway, so all messages to public-webarch-comments are still treated formally. There are plenty of other fora if you want informal discussion. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Sunday, 7 November 2004 05:05:37 UTC