W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: URGENT: train wreck coming, action needed. (was: Fwd: URI-CG group chartered)

From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 11:18:36 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030405110405.00b71640@127.0.0.1>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, public-uri-cg@w3.org

At 18:38 04/04/2003 -0600, pat hayes wrote:

>>On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 15:06, pat hayes wrote:
>>[...]
>>>  But this IS a VERY big deal, and we should raise hell about it, and
>>>  not stop raising hell until this idea is abandoned.
>>
>>Er... well... if you have a suggestion as to what the spec
>>should say, please suggest it (to uri@w3.org) and see what
>>the editor says.
>>
>>If you don't get satisfaction, then perhaps raising hell
>>is in order. But try the straight path first, OK?
>
>Ahem. Duly noted, tie straight, breathing normally.
>
>Will compose thoughtful and moderately worded English response when the 
>Irish subsides.

Though, as Pat's earlier response [1] shows, the argument is not with any 
current URI wording, but with some proposed new wording that isn't yet on 
the table.  Even Roy's new working draft [2] retains the old wording.

When I "dismissed" this as a philosophical matter of little import, I had 
overlooked that several specifications, and (apparently) the official 
position, implicitly look to the URI specification for a definition of 
"resource".  If that definition could be removed to some more neutral 
territory (e.g. the emerging web architecture document), then maybe that 
frees the URI spec to focus itself on syntactical aspects of URIs, and 
those resources that actually have assigned URIs?

<aside>
I think there has long been a tension that URIs serve (at least two) 
different masters:  in the web architecture (wherein the concept 
originated), as a framework for universal identification, but within the 
IETF (who "own" the specification) I sense a broad view that URIs are some 
kind of glorified address.  For many purposes, these are reconcilable 
views, but when issues like this come up one sees the fault lines emerge.
</aside>

#g
--

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0117.html

[2] 
http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html#rfc.section.1.1


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Saturday, 5 April 2003 06:44:40 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:53 EDT