W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2010

Re: "tdb" and "duri" URI schemes...

From: Jonathan A Rees (CC) <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 19:14:40 -0400
Message-Id: <E6BF33F1-FD58-4761-9A51-305702D7C8B9@creativecommons.org>
Cc: Reto Bachmann-Gm¨šr <reto@gmuer.ch>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
I don't suggest handling the pathological cases. I just meant that the currently implicit assumption of non-pathology ought to be surfaced somewhere in the document.


-- apologies for brevity / using handheld gizmo --

On Nov 2, 2010, at 15:35, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 23:16:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:08 UTC