Re: Comments on "Interoperability of referential uses of hashless URIs"

David,

Your solution though surely assumes that only one agent, the publisher,
is doing all this use of these URIs.    But that is not the case. 
One person can publish a web page at a URI,  and two independent
people can use that URI inconsistently without conferring or knowing each other exist.
So no one is in a position to determine whether in this case
ambiguity may be a problem.

Tim

On 2011-10 -19, at 15:47, David Booth wrote:

> Regarding
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/09/referential-use.html
> 
> This document provides a very good explanation and example of the harm
> that can be caused by the use of conflicting conventions around URI use.
> The Creative Commons licensing case is a great example, as the publisher
> of http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/78807 (for example) has created an
> ambiguity problem for consumers who do not know which convention the
> site has used.
> 
> However, the document seems to assume that the solution to this problem
> (i.e., the conventions that the W3C should recommend) *must* prevent the
> ambiguity problems that are described in section "The Conflict".  But I
> think what is required from an architectural perspective is not that the
> conventions *necessarily* prevent such ambiguity (because we will always
> have sites of varying quality), but that the conventions support the
> *ability* of publishers to avoid such ambiguity problems if they choose
> to do so, and the conventions furthermore encourage publishers to do
> so.  
> 
> In other words, another potential way forward is to permit both
> conventions D2 ("A hashless URI refers to the document at that URI, when
> there is one") and S2 ("A hashless URI permitting retrieval refers to
> something described by what's retrieved") to be used, but recommend that
> S2 be used *only* in cases where the ambiguity that it creates is likely
> to be harmful, such as in the Creative Commons licensing case.
> 
> Such guidance also might acknowledge that: (a) it is impossible for the
> publisher to foresee all of the downstream uses that could lead to
> conflict or ambiguity; and (b) downstream conflict or ambiguity are
> impossible to prevent anyway (in the general case), regardless of what
> conventions are adopted.
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
> 
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 21:31:33 UTC