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

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

From: Schleiff, Marty <marty.schleiff@boeing.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:20:23 -0700
Message-ID: <2C1C6A07EEDCB14ABBACAC793BF8BE9E02E96B4F@XCH-NW-6V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>

> Noah said:
> It's true that the examples generally 
> talk about metadata that involves the resource as well, but I 
> don't think the substantive conclusions make the distinction. 
>  Consider what is arguably the key constraint in the finding:
> 
> "Constraint: Web software MUST NOT depend on the correctness 
> of metadata inferred from a URI, except when the encoding of 
> such metadata is documented by applicable standards and 
> specifications."
> 
> I don't think that does distinguish and I don't think it 
> needs to, between metadata about the resource and metadata 
> about the URI.  So, while I think this email has kicked off a 
> useful discussion, I am not inclined to revise the finding.  

The constraint seems valid to me. I don't think the finding needs
revision. 

What threw me off is that the examples don't include any metadata
encoded via standard/specified means, where an application MAY depend on
the correctness of the metadata. Are there any documented standards or
specifications for encoding metadata into HTTP URIs? I think URN sub
schemes are an effective way to encode metadata about an identifier, and
ongoing XRI efforts include the standard encoding of metadata, but I
don't know of any for HTTP.
 
Received on Saturday, 30 September 2006 15:20:29 GMT

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