W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Can "http://danbri.org" and "http://danbri.org/" URIs represent different things?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:51:43 +0200
Message-ID: <4A4F889F.3090209@danbri.org>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:14 GMT