- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:00:34 -0400
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
At 05:30 PM 6/16/2005 +0100, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote: >> ... each of the 3 philosophies feels consistent to me >> ... 1. Tim's >> ... 2. published subjects >> ... 3. "you can identify anything with http: but if it's not an >> information resource you should do a redirect' ... >Point 2 should not be included here, because the practice of using PSIs is completely orthogonal to httpRange-14. ... when you use PSIs you only ever directly allocate URIs to 'information resources' (sensu TimBL). This means that option 2 should be subsumed under option 1, because it is entirely consistent. Technically 2 is consistent with 1 but I suggest it not be folded in with 1. An important semantics of PSI is the indirection semantics. This includes (a) there _must be_ a document and (b) that document _must_ provide sufficient instruction to a human reader to recognize the intended subject. Indirection is not an essential feature of the #fragid philosophy. While it would not be considered Best Practice (I hope) for there to be no "information resource" at the URI, the #fragid philosophy does not require such an information resource Nor does the notion of a human reader consuming the content of such an information resource affect whether the full URI is acceptable model-wise to name the intended subject.
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 17:00:49 UTC