W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2002

Re: D-AR009.3 discussion points

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 22:53:07 -0400
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Cc: wsawg public <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20020521225307.J16765@www.markbaker.ca>
My 2c on this one ...

On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 01:34:35PM -0400, Christopher Ferris wrote:
> D-AR009.3
> "All conceptual elements should be addressable directly via a URI reference."
> 
> 
> HP: This belongs under D-AC011

Agreed.

> 
> IBM: Should say 'identifiable' instead of 'addressable'

Sure, that works for me.

> 
> PF: I would prefer that URIs, rather than URI references, be used.  Also, this should probably be 
> relocated to D-AC-011.
> 
> CVX: I'm not quite sure I understand what this means, but at least it says "should".  I would be 
> happier if this were a bit softer, as in "An effort should be made to make conceptual elements 
> addressable by URI's".  I don't like having requirements that sound to me like they might be 
> impossible.  It is reasonable to accept such risk in a research project, but less so in this sort of 
> WG.

Identifying things with URIs is a really easy and cheap thing to do, as
long as you're able to give them some semblance of persistence.  I
personally think that "should" is fine; if it really is too much of a
burden for you, then don't.  Otherwise, do.

So how does "All conceptual elements should be identifiable directly via
a URI" sound?

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2002 22:44:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:59 GMT