W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2003

RE: 2.3 URI Ambiguity

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:54:52 -0000
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E80869A3A5@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "'www-tag@w3.org'" <www-tag@w3.org>

Hi Mark,

> Perhaps we should just stick with the other example.

This indirect reference is a little ambiguous ;-) it would be helpful to
have an exact reference or quote of the example that you think we should
stick with.

This particular piece of text (2.3) has been and clearly continues to give
us headaches... at our F2F I raised the issue that the case for
distinguishing between ambiguous use of a URI and indirect identification
(former 'bad', latter 'ok') had not been made in the text of 2.3.

The data base example was cast as a case of umbiguous use... however in each
individual database there was no ambiguity of use. The trouble came with the
merge operation which did recognise/respect the different uses being made of
the same URI. One database uses the URI to make reference to a web page, the
other uses it to make reference to a company. I'll avoid asserting which
references are direct and which indirect... (since that might depend on the
URI in question eg. http://www.markbaker.ca). The examples seem to
illustrate to me that "context of use" (ie. doctype, surrounding content...)
goes someway to disambiguating the referrent of a reference (made using a



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] 
> Sent: 1 December 2003 17:31
> To: Walden Mathews
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: 2.3 URI Ambiguity
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 11:09:33AM -0500, Walden Mathews wrote:
> > When I read the first paragraph above, it seems clear to me that the 
> > conference organizers are asking for an identifier that identifies a 
> > mailbox;
> I hadn't considered that.  It could be.
> > they are not asking for any URI that the attendee feels
> > is his/her global identifier.  So in that context, I think 
> maybe the 
> > text is not suggesting that httpRange-14 is resolved one way or 
> > another.
> > 
> > If that context needs to be made clearer, maybe a tweak is 
> in order.  
> > Do you see any light in this direction?
> It could be clarified, certainly, but I wonder if the example 
> wouldn't become too confusing as a result?  Perhaps we should 
> just stick with the other example.
> Mark.
> -- 
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Monday, 1 December 2003 12:55:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:40 UTC