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

Re: [metaDataInURI-31]: Initial draft finding for public review/comment.

From: <MDaconta@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:10:36 EDT
Message-ID: <1ea.cb96976.2c3c631c@aol.com>
To: skw@hp.com, www-tag@w3.org
In a message dated 7/8/2003 6:44:46 AM US Mountain Standard Time, skw@hp.com 
writes:

> I would appreciate some feedback on this draft. Whether a simpler, shorter,
> finding is a better path to take? Whether "Don't peek inside URIs" is all
> that need be said?
> 

Hi Stuart,

First, to answer your questions:
1. A simpler and shorter finding is only better for the "don't peek inside" 
position.
2. I disagree with the "Don't peek inside URIs" sentiment.  

The "Don't peek inside" position stresses the use of identification as an 
assertion of 
uniqueness and possibly a mechanism to locate that unique thing.  In essence, 

an opaque "pointer".  While those are necessary functions of a URI, 
imbuing an identifier with additional metadata should be 
encouraged.  First, additional metadata in a URI makes it 
easier to keep the URI "cool" (as in <A HREF="http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html)">
http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html)</A> by
adding classification metadata to the identifier (as with the W3C URLs in 
your 
finding).
Second, additional metadata in a URI enables a higher-level
of efficient processing on resources by applications that *just* want 
to process URIs.  Opaque URIs would eliminate that increasing possibility.

Best wishes,

 - Mike
---------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Daconta
Chief Scientist, APG, McDonald Bradley, Inc.
www.daconta.net
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2003 14:10:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:18 GMT