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

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

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:42:47 -0500
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC572@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, www-tag@w3.org

The problem  of identity (system assigned identifier) and 
identification is what **a system** makes of it.   The W3C 
can assert that within the system over which it has 
authoritative jurisdiction, a mailto is a valid identifier 
for a user of that system.  As soon as that identifier 
is used in a different systemic context (eg, an eBay 
screen name as an identifier for a perpetrator of 
fraud), then the means and proof of the process of 
identification is important and will be in question. 

It is insufficient to state a label is an identifier 
unless the identification process is named or the 
means of association is specified (eg, this can 
be an identifier because of these properties within 
this system).

The assertion of the identification process cannot 
be overlooked nor can its system scoping properties.  
An identifier is a labeled unique instance of some 
syntax specification without these.

I agree with Roy one should not confuse these, but 
one must understand their coupling and that one 
does not exist without the other.

The eBay example is not facetious.  It is a real 
world example.  Because of that, there is high 
interest in the results of this finding.

1.  What are the properties of an identifier in 
the web system (say architecture)?

2.  How can these be associated to an identification 
process?

3.  Is the web architecture silent about uses of 
a web identifier outside the scope of this architecture?
(IOW, if you ever have to give an advisory to a legal 
process, what would you say?)

Item three does not have to be answered to get this worked 
in the architecture, but some W3C authority should be 
preparing to answer it on behalf of members such as eBay.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 12:13:42PM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > If you construct a mailto: URI, make sure it identifies an 
> > internet mailing address. If you receive a mailto: URI, do 
> > not assume that it identifies an internet mailing address.
> 
> That has some appeal... I'd be interested in Mark Bakers response to the
> *first* of clause.

I'd have to disagree with it, for the reasons I gave.  I agree with
what Roy just said too.

> Elsewhere in this thread he's asserted (maybe for example
> or maybe for real) that he use (or could use) mailto:distobj@acm.org to
> identify himself (ie. the person) - he's also made similar statements
about
> http://www.markbaker.ca/ (that it identifies Mark the person, not his web
> site or a particular page on his website).

FWIW, my FOAF (http://www.markbaker.ca/foaf.rdf) is authoritative;

  <foaf:Person rdf:about="http://www.markbaker.ca/">
    [...]
 
<foaf:mbox_sha1sum>0294fa59419cd2a52c0c88b8dae19d765521998b</foaf:mbox_sha1s
um>
    [...]
  </foaf>

The mailto URI was just an example.
Received on Monday, 14 July 2003 11:42:53 GMT

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