- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 15:35:39 -0400
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: > > There are two possible sources of instability, the URI -> resource > mapping and the resource -> representation relationship. To be useful > in the way that Larry wants it to be (e.g. for citation), DURI has to > nail down *both* of these. The DURI names not the original resource, > but a checkpoint of the original resource - a second resource whose > representations are, and always will be, the representations that the > original resource had at the given time. > > (using AWWW terminology here.) If you are dealing with pathological cases, such as a URI that changes what resource it identifies over time, then you have other things to worry about. For example, if protocol is not followed the the different representations might not be of the same resource. In that case the citation would be of a particular representation (not captured by the duri). I think if you are going to handle such pathological cases, then explanation and motivation has to be in the earlier section of the document, where one would read about scope. -Alan
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 19:36:27 UTC