On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:54:52PM -0000, Williams, Stuart wrote: > 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. 8-) Sorry Stuart, I was referring to the database/merging example. I thought that explained the problem with ambiguity very well. > 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. I figured as much, and was happy with the revised text in that respect. > 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 > URI). True. So if you point was to suggest that the conference registration form, by virtue of asking for a registrant's "email address" rather than their "globally unique identifier", defines the context for interpretation, I'd agree. I just didn't see the example explaining that point. If it can be fixed, then great, though as I mentioned to Walden, I'm not sure it can while remaining succinct. My apologies for the number of exchanges required to get to this point. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.caReceived on Monday, 1 December 2003 13:31:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:55:50 GMT