- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:51:43 +0200
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On 4/7/09 16:36, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > > On 2009-07 -03, at 03:55, Larry Masinter wrote: > >>>>>> Could http://danbri.org be a URI for "me the person", and >>>>>> http://danbri.org/ >>>>>> be a document about me (and also serve as my OpenID)? >> >> Allowing http://danbri.org and http://danbri.org/ to "represent" >> different things would be a bad design choice. Don't do it. >> >> Perhaps there isn't an audit trail in RFC 2616 that doesn't >> tell you that you shouldn't do something, but that doesn't >> mean that it isn't a bad idea. >> >> RFC 2616 was not written with the "semantic web" in mind, >> wasn't intended to solve the "semantic web"'s design problems >> for how to use URIs to represent abstract concepts, and >> so trying to do a close reading of the words (at least >> some of which were written by me) is -- I can claim -- >> a futile exercise. > > Well said. Doesn't the "use a 303 redirect if you're representing a non-digital thing" http-range-14 guidance violate this same advice? Let's forget the domain-name-only scenario for a moment: Per http-range ... I can deploy http://danbri.org/id as naming "me, myself", but redirect with HTTP 303 to http://danbri.org/id/ as naming "a document about me". Does that TAG approve, disapprove, tolerate or discourage this latter usage? cheers, Dan
Received on Saturday, 4 July 2009 16:52:27 UTC