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

Re: Proposed disposition of Stuart Williams' comments on Metadata in URI 31

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:58:46 -0400
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0609282058o739076e6q213dab545b04f9a1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Schleiff, Marty" <marty.schleiff@boeing.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Marty, I think you hit the nail on the head with this observation;

On 9/28/06, Schleiff, Marty <marty.schleiff@boeing.com> wrote:
> I think dereferencing is really nice for obtaining information about a
> named entity, especially information that can change. When information
> about a named entity changes, it's nice to be able to update the
> dereferencable information without having to rename the entity. However,
> metadata about the identifier itself should be built into the
> identifier.

Ok, but in those examples you gave, I don't believe the information
you talk about there is identifier metadata.  If I read the second one
correctly, you're claiming that "reassignability" and "one-timeness"
is identifier metadata, right?  If so, why?  And what breaks if it was
treated otherwise?  For example, what if, for the second example, the
assertion source sent the URI in a message such as this one;

   <reassignable value="false">http://....</reassignable>

Cheers,

Mark.
Received on Friday, 29 September 2006 03:58:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:42 GMT