- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:17:33 +0000
- To: public-powderwg@w3.org
I have read http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-powder-use-cases-20071031/ and found it a clear and easy to follow document. I have one question, concerning 3.1.10 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-powder-use-cases-20071031/#identity [[ DRs, their components and individual assertions should have unique and unambiguous identifiers. ]] I found that the use cases did motivate the weaker requirement [[ DRs should have unique and unambiguous identifiers. ]] but I wondered how much would be lost if "components and individual assertions" did not have "unique and unambiguous identifiers". I note that in a way this requirement interacts with 3.1.3 Groupng, and 3.1.4 Composite Assertions, in that if I assert that some group of resources has some composite property, I have implicitly asserted that a particular resource has a particular property, but that implicit assertion is unlikely to have identity in the sense of 3.1.10; and some functionality will be lost - but I doubt this was crucial functionality. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 19:18:01 UTC