W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2004

RE: Heads up: RFC2996bis, possible problem for RDF

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:00:09 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040219094333.02e22720@127.0.0.1>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 15:53 18/02/04 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>However, I would not object to being a co-signatory on your suggested
>>textual change.
>
>I agree with Graham that this is a potentially serious problem that we 
>should nip in the bud. I also would like to be a co-signatory on the 
>proposed textual changes; Graham, please include me. I particularly like 
>the inclusion of the phrase " for purposes of retrieval" as it 
>acknowledges that URIs have other purposes.

OK, here's what I propose:

[[[[
Further to my earlier message [1], I've discussed the issue of URI 
normalization with some colleagues and we'd like to propose the following 
small change of wording with respect to [2] (announcement [3]):

...

Section 6.1, para 2, final sentence:

The suggested change is to this sentence:
[[
Therefore, comparison methods are designed to minimize false negatives 
while strictly avoiding false positives.
]]

To be:
[[
Therefore, comparison methods are designed to minimize false negatives 
while strictly avoiding false positives when used for purposes of retrieval.
]]

Rationale:

This reinforces the earlier comment that "URI comparison is performed in 
respect to some particular purpose" [section 6 intro], and I think provides 
the necessary get-out for those purposes other than retrieval for which the 
normalization processes described can result in false URI-equivalence (i.e. 
in circumstances where existing applications may legitimately deliver 
differing results).

Graham Klyne
Jeremy Carroll
Pat Hayes

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Feb/0094.html

[2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-04.txt

[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf-announce/Current/msg28902.html

]]]]

The IETF debating culture is slightly different, so the multiple 
signatories count for less than the quality of the argument, but I don't 
think it harms.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2004 05:04:30 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Thursday, 19 February 2004 05:04:34 EST