W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2008

RE: reference needed - w3.org versioned documents

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:48:07 +0000
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9674EA156DA93A4F855379AABDA4A5C611A1DDF9C8@G5W0277.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Hello Jonathan,

> The
> other URI, however, is open to many interpretations - maybe
> it names different things at different times (maybe you have
> to know when the use of the URI was written in order to be
> able to understand assertions using the URI), or maybe it
> names a Fieldingesque "resource" (a time-varying
> membership-of-representation-in-something function), or maybe
> it names some particular thing whose essential properties can
> be communicated, or maybe it names a network endpoint. In any
> of these interpretations there is little guidance in knowing
> *which* thing of whatever variety is being named. In other
> words, the URI is not of much use as a name at the present time.

Is the answer not evident from the references is Felix Sasaki's response?
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Mar/0136

<quote cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/#versioning">
Versioning
Each W3C Technical Report has two URIs associated with it, located at the beginning of the document:

A "this version" URI, which identifies the specific document. W3C will make every effort to make a given document indefinitely available, in its original form, at its "this version" URI. W3C may correct broken markup and broken links in place (per the in-place modification policy) but otherwise will make every effort not to change content after publication of a document.

A "latest version" URI, which identifies the most recently published draft in a document series. By document series we mean, for example, "all the drafts of the XML Schema 1.0 specification from First Public Working Draft to Recommendation."

We encourage you to consider carefully which of the two identifiers to use when referring to a W3C Technical Report. If you mean to refer to a particular document or passage "forever," please use the "this version" URI. If you need to refer to "whatever is the most up-to-date version", please use the "latest version" URI.
</quote>

ie. the referents are "technical reports", one is nominally immutable (modulo the reference "in-place" modification policy), the other is 'Fieldingesque'... (infact both are - just that for one there is a stated intention of near invariance over time.

BTW: AFAIK this policy applies only to the /TR branch of the W3C web site.

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Jonathan Rees
> Sent: 31 March 2008 13:41
> To: Pat Hayes
> Cc: www-tag@
> Subject: Re: reference needed - w3.org versioned documents
>
> Actually I was just trying to find an example of a URI for a
> document for which there was explicit *justification* in
> using the URI to name the document.  The question is not so
> much about any server "giving" any particular response, as
> about whether when the URI is used in an assertion, will
> anyone will understand what was meant by the URI. (Server
> behavior factors into any assessment of this, but is not
> definitive, as servers can behave inscrutibly, unpredictably,
> or incorrectly.) I think one would be hard pressed to find
> any intelligent, diligent person aware of the w3.org URI
> policy statement thinking that the dated URI refers to
> anything other than that particular document (version). The
> other URI, however, is open to many interpretations - maybe
> it names different things at different times (maybe you have
> to know when the use of the URI was written in order to be
> able to understand assertions using the URI), or maybe it
> names a Fieldingesque "resource" (a time-varying
> membership-of-representation-in-something function), or maybe
> it names some particular thing whose essential properties can
> be communicated, or maybe it names a network endpoint. In any
> of these interpretations there is little guidance in knowing
> *which* thing of whatever variety is being named. In other
> words, the URI is not of much use as a name at the present time.
>
> I'm not arguing for or against any particular meaning for the
> undated URI - just observing that (as everyone in this list
> knows) there is no consensus. To me the question is not "what
> does the URI mean" but "how will the URI help us to
> communicate among ourselves and why". Our best hope for being
> able to use the undated URI as a name would be a credible
> statement from w3.org permitting, enabling, and encouraging
> us to use it in some particular way, as it has made for the dated URI.
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Mar 29, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>
>               At 4:28 PM -0400 3/28/08, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>
>               Could someone please point me to the memo that
> explains the naming policy used by w3.org that prescribes
> that dereferencing
>                    http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-mt-20030123/
>               always gives the same thing but
>                   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
>               might not?
>
>
>       I believe the rationale is that both of them give the
> "same thing", but different things. The dated URI always
> gives you the version of the publication which was published
> on the date in question. The undated URI always gives you the
> version of the publication which is most current on the date
> you de-reference the URI. You might say that the first gives
> you a dated draft, the second gives you the actual
> publication. Actual publication are entities that are
> themselves, of course, subject to change: but the change is
> not in the reference mapping from the URI to the publication,
> but in the publication itself. The very same publication
> might look different on one date from how it looks on
> another, c.f. a blog or a newspaper.
>
>       I am pretty sure that this is indeed explained in a W3C
> note somewhere, but I can't get hold of it right at present.
>
>       Pat
>
>
>               Thanks
>               Jonathan
>
>
>
>       --
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>       IHMC               (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
>       40 South Alcaniz St.       (850)202 4416   office
>       Pensacola                 (850)202 4440   fax
>       FL 32502                     (850)291 0667    cell
>       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
>       http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 31 March 2008 17:51:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:53 GMT