Re: Middle ground change proposal for httpRange-14

Hi David,

On 25 Mar 2012, at 16:54, David Booth wrote:
> I have drafted what I think may represent a middle ground change
> proposal and I am wondering if something along this line would also meet
> your concerns:
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/UriDefinitionDiscoveryProtocol
> 
> Highlights of this proposal:
> - It enables a URI owner to unambiguously convey any URI definition to
> an interested client.
> - It does not constrain whether or how a client will use that or any
> other URI definition, as that is the client's business.
> - It retains the existing httpRange-14 rule.
> - It also permits the use of an HTTP 200 response with RDF content as a
> means of conveying a URI definition.
> - It provides guidelines for avoiding confusion and inconsistencies,
> while acknowledging the burden those guidelines place on URI owners.
> - It encourages URI owners to publish URI definitions even if those URI
> definitions are not perfect. 
> 
> It also includes numerous other clarifications. 
> 
> Would something along these lines also meet your concerns?


I don't think it does, quite, for me, for the following reasons:

1. The focus on the *definition* of a URI as opposed to a mere description is problematic for me. There are lots of things in the world that couldn't be adequately *defined* but can be described to more or less detail. I worry that people will get tied up in knots trying to work out what a definition looks like for a Person or a Book. Although I prefer most of the language in your draft, I prefer the looser 'description' used in Jonathan's document.

2. While the draft says that it doesn't define the term "information resource" it nevertheless uses that term in many places, as if it means something. For example, in 3.2.1 it says that you can tell (if a result is eg a 200 OK) that the target URI identifies an information resource. Given that 'information resource' isn't defined in the document, what does that actually mean in terms of what an application should do?

3. I like the section about resolving incompatibilities, but for me it isn't strong enough, particularly as it's non-normative. I'd like publishers to be able to rely on clients ignoring an implicit URI definition when there's an explicit URI definition, for example. Without that, I think the draft is just a reworded version of Jonathan's draft: publishers who 200 OK on URIs that are supposed to identify People are still Wrong.

So it gets a lot of the way there, just not quite all of it.

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com

Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 22:09:46 UTC