W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2006

Re: [metadataInURI-31] A guide to where we stand on issue metadataInURI-31

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:03:32 -0800
Message-Id: <18ED94AA-E130-4F08-AB1D-046BCD6764C8@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: "Stuart Williams" <skw@hp.com>, www-tag@w3.org
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

Noah,

That's going further than I'd had in mind. There's a gulf of  
difference between inferring things about the URI's structure based  
on information you've received from the authority, vs. what you guess  
based on human intuition.

I'm concerned that if the TAG doesn't tread this line very carefully,  
you'll inadvertently bless practices like sniffing the media type  
from the filename extension (e.g., by intermediaries).

WRT Roy's concern, I had been conflating metadata and identity; if  
it's the TAG's intent to talk about a precise definition of metadata,  
it might do best to avoid the term "metadata." ;)

Cheers,


On 2006/03/28, at 7:05 AM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> As a result, we've decided to explore
> a significant change of direction in the finding.  Whereas in 2002  
> (before
> my time) the TAG decided [1]:
>
> "Resolved: Accept issue matadataInURI-NNN with note that TAG thinks  
> the
> answer is "no" and will explain what to do instead. "
>
> last week we decided to have a more balanced presentation of the  
> upsides
> and downsides of relying on inferred metadata.  In particular, we all
> regularly manipulate URIs based on guesses involving metadata.  For
> example, after somehow discovering a link to:
>
> http://example.org/book/chapter2
>
> many of us will quite reasonably experiment with trying to find  
> chapter 3
> at:
>
> http://example.org/book/chapter3
>
> even if we haven't checked what the publishers actual URI assignment
> policy is.  If the document retrieved by that URI looks right, we may
> trust it.  Of course, you wouldn't use such a guess when requiring
> information that's 100% reliable, but in many cases it's a good an  
> useful
> thing to do.   It's an important aspect of what people expect of  
> the Web.
>
> So, I've been asked to redraft the finding in a way that covers  
> both sides
> of the equation.  See the as yet unapproved minutes of our  
> discussion at
> [2].  I think this means we're heading in the direction suggested  
> by your
> note.
>
> Noah
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/02-tag-summary.html#metadata-uri
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-tagmem-minutes.html

--
Mark Nottingham
mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 18:04:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:39 GMT