W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2003

Re: httpRange-14

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:59:53 -0400
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: danbri@w3.org, Public W3C <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20030728135953.N790@www.markbaker.ca>

So if I can try to summarize the positions...

Both sides agree that using URIs to identify different things should
be avoided.

The pro-hash side suggests that this ambiguity is best addressed by
constraining URIs to identifying cyc:ConceptualWorks.  This has the
advantage of simplicity, but the disadvantage that the fragment part
of a URI is only seen by the client, not by HTTP intermediaries and

The pro-slash side suggests that it is best addressed by using a
different URI to identify different things, or by being able to make
assertions about the results of a GET.  Intermediaries and servers
can see the whole URI.

From a "Do no harm" POV, the former appears more damaging in that many
resources on the Web today aren't cyc:ConceptualWorks.  Plus it reduces
visibility such that intermediaries aren't nearly as useful (they can't
tell which resource is being referenced, only which ConceptualWork).


On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 08:51:51PM -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> The nearest cyc term is (from previous discussions)
> cyc:ConceptualWork.  This something abstract, not concrete.
> The word "documents" has been used on this thread because it is shorter.
> Tim  BL
> > You're probably right, but is it also the case that all corporeal 
> > things
> > are generally recognized as disjoint from "documents"?  Books, for
> > example?  Or these legal papers on my desk?  I'd say not.
> >
> > Mark.

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 14:22:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:26 UTC