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

Re: [metadataInURI-31] New editors draft for Metadata In URIs Finding

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 18:41:19 -0400
Message-ID: <44650F0F.8010508@acm.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org

This is useful stuff.  I did have a couple of comments though:

In Section 2.2:

> Bob is using the original URI for more than its intended purpose, 
> which is to identify the Chicago weather page. Instead, he's 
> inferring from it information about the structure of a Web site that,
>  he guesses, might use a uniform naming convention for the weather in
>  lots of cities. So, when Bob tries the Boston URI, he has to be 
> prepared for the possibility that his guess will prove wrong: Web 
> architecture does not guarantee that the retrieved page, if there is 
> one, has the weather for Boston, or indeed that it contains any 
> weather report at all. Even if it does, there is no assurance that it
>  is current weather, that it is intended for reliable use by 
> consumers, etc. Bob has seen an advertisement listing just the 
> Chicago URI, and that is the only one for which the URI authority has
>  taken specific responsibility.

I don't understand the reference to what "Web architecture" guarantees
in this paragraph.  I don't think "Web architecture" guarantees that the
page retrieved from http://example.org/weather/Chicago has the weather
for Chicago either.  In the case of Chicago, it's the URI authority that
(as you note) states ("guarantees" seems a bit strong) that
http://example.org/weather/Chicago will return a Chicago weather page.
Similarly, it's the URI authority (rather than Web architecture) that
hasn't made any claims about providing information on Boston weather.

In Section 2.3:

> "For the best weather information for your city, visit
> http://example.org/weather/your-city-name-here."
> 
> Reading that advertisement, Bob is entitled to assume that any
> weather report retrieved from such a URI is both trustworthy and
> current.

The appearance of words like "entitled", "trustworthy", and "current" 
seem to go too far in this context.  The subject here seems to be the 
authority having documented its URI assignment policy (sort of) in the 
ad, not the quality of the reports (trustworthy, loyal, helpful, 
friendly, courteous, ...!).

It seems to me that the key point is that reading that advertisement, 
Bob can reasonably assume that he can get a weather report for a 
specific city at a URI created by substituting the city name into the 
given URI pattern.  Whether he believes that the report will be 
trustworthy or current seems a bit extraneous (on the other hand, 
suppose the URI was 
http://example.org/inaccurateOutOfDateWeather/your-city-name-here, for 
example?). Anyway, I assume the TAG isn't making findings about 
advertising claims.

--Frank
Received on Friday, 12 May 2006 22:36:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:40 GMT