W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2002

Re: tags

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:00:41 +0200
To: ext Tim Kindberg <timothy@hpl.hp.com>, URN <urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com>, URI <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B874D4F9.C2E0%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-01-23 19:18, "ext Tim Kindberg" <timothy@hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> At 12:43 PM 1/23/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>> But why should the rest of the world also live with that
>> restriction. Many folks *need* hierarchical identifiers.
> ? tag doesn't deny them that: whatever follows the <authority,date> may be
> hierarchical.

But since tag: is not a hierarchical URI scheme, one cannot use
existing APIs and libraries that are able to recognize and parse
hierarchical URIs. You then have to roll your own for the tag
scheme, and any other scheme that "allows" you to have proprietary
hierarchical syntax.

>>> I'm happy to let such communities develop their own standards but it's none
>>> of my business.
>> Then why are you commenting on the 'hrn:' scheme?
> I was talking about the tag scheme. But I'm also entitled to point out what
> I believe to be deficiencies in other proposals. I thought that that what
> this forum was for.

Absolutely. Though on this point you appeared
to be arguing
that a general, hierarchical URI scheme was not
>>> One of our intended use models is indeed that people can attach tags to
>>> physical entities but the point of doing so is for users to retrieve
>>> digital resources from them
>>> (http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2001/HPL-2001-95.html). So I don't see
>>> the difference.
>> I don't follow. How do you retrieve a digital resource
>> "from" a non-digital resource?
> You read the identifier with a sensor (e.g. a camera, barcode reader, ...)
> and send the identifier to a resolver, which looks it up and returns the
> URLs of one or more corresponding resources.

I don't see how the entry method has anything to do
with the nature or interpretation of the identifier.

>> Do you mean e.g. a book which may both be printed and available
>> in digital form?
> That would be one example. But one could associate (the identifier on) the
> book with many other types of digital resource, depending upon the
> application. Tag has nothing to say about the allowed types of binding.

It appears that we are not talking about the same thing.

You seem to be using the URI to retrieve metadata about
the resource, not the resource. As with barcode or other
entry methods, I don't see how that has anything to do
with the nature of the URI itself.



Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2002 13:59:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:04 UTC