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

Re: Heads up: RFC2996bis, possible problem for RDF

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:20:01 +0000
Message-ID: <40349BE1.1000501@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org


I am happy with my name on that ... if it adds no value having the WG 
endorse it then let's leave it at that.

Jeremy


Graham Klyne wrote:

> 
> 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 06:20:32 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Thursday, 19 February 2004 06:20:35 EST