W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > September 2000

Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-daigle-uri-std-00.txt

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:02:06 -0400 (EDT)
To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
cc: "xml-uri@w3.org" <xml-uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009071256110.3018-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, John Cowan wrote:

> Dan Brickley wrote:
> > The text you cite, [2], leaves open the question of whether the
> > 'something' that is referenced may differ over time. At any tick of the
> > clock, the identifier 'can' act as a reference to some thing; as time
> > passes and the world changes, it might subsequently fail to refer, or pick
> > out a different thing-with-identity.
> This is so in principle, but I believe it's better to model this as
> a matter of rebinding the resource-to-entity-body relationship.
> That way the URI-to-resource binding is constant, and the resource-to-entity-body
> relationship can vary (or not exist).

I'm inclined to agree about the modeling style, though I'm not sure who
it is that would have to agree with your recommended modeling style.

Is this a matter for individual Web content creators to decide, ie. I
could chose to manage http://danbri.org/ names one way and
http://danbri.com/ names another? Or is it a modeling style
that you're encouraging eg. the URI spec editors to adopt as a
common-for-everyone model of URI/content binding? 

If the former, my concern over DanC's claim still stands: URI-centric
metadata apps will need to take into account the likelihood that some
folk won't adopt your preferred style of name management...

Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 13:02:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:44 UTC