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

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

From: <MDaconta@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 14:14:28 EDT
Message-ID: <103.32220e4d.2c3db584@aol.com>
To: Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM, www-tag@w3.org
In a message dated 7/9/2003 10:33:50 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM writes:

> The original question[1] that was the impetus to raise this issue was
> "should there be some standard way to encode metadata in URIs"?
> 
> I think the consensus is "no". I haven't heard anyone suggesting that,
> for example, version information should be encoded in URIs with
> "/VERx.y/" as a path component and that the string "/VERx.y/" in a URI
> should always be interpreted as the version number of the resource.
> I'm sure it would be convenient in some communities if a proposal
> along these lines was adopted, but it isn't going to be.
> 

I would disagree that the consensus is "no".  It is only no in the 
sense (which your example points out) of standardizing keywords.
That should be left up to an assignment authority.  

However, there is much more that could be standardized relating 
to schemes, parts of schemes and syntax.  For example, if there are two
methods for uniquely identifying a thing -- it would be nice to be able to
specify in my URI metadata which "uniqueness" attribute I am using.

But before you can even broach that you have to decide on whether URIs should 
be opaque or not. That is where consensus must first be guaged.

 - Mike
---------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Daconta
Chief Scientist, APG, McDonald Bradley, Inc.
www.daconta.net
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 14:14:41 GMT

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