Re: i001: EPRs as identifiers: update to EPR pros and cons by adding ref prop scenario

Hi Dave.

* David Orchard <> [2004-12-03 18:10-0800]
> What is the point of this?  I haven't been asked by the WG to produce a
> document of such a form, just a comparison.  I'd be glad to, but I
> wasn't asked to.

The point was to express an opinion, and make it as reusable as

As I was working on understanding issue 1, I worked on a comparison
and did it in the XMLspec format, which happens to be easily reusable
should we want to publish a primer, WG Note about the mismatch, etc.

I believe that, should we still have a misalignment with the Web, the
work that will have been going on around issue i001 will have to be
clearly exposed to the outside world, which includes the TAG.

> Also, I disagree with good chunks of the content.  You say the same
> thing - that using referencePs takes an address/identifier out of the
> web - repeatedly.  I guess I could say "soap processing model" 50 times,
> but what's the point of that?   This seems like a "Yes it does No it
> doesn't Yes it does No it doesn't" kind of discussion style.  

I am not surprised that you (and probably others) disagree with parts
of this comparison. Similarly, I (and others) disagree with parts of

As I thought your update didn't address certain points made in the
long thread that followed your first version, I posted a
counter-proposal for this comparison in order to reflect another point
of view about issue i001.

I wish that we can get to a point where we agree about a comparison,
and get a reasonable resolution to issue i001.

> Also, I disagree with your conclusion.  My update conclusion says that
> there are pros and cons to both, and yours is an advocacy position.

This is correct.

You, as champion of issue i001, have proposed to close this issue by
stating that there are good reasons to have reference properties and
detailing a comparison with URIs to explain why.

I, as member of the WG, am proposing to close issue i001 by removing
reference properties, and have sent out another comparison showing
where I'm coming from, originally based on your proposed comparison
(in order to take into account the other POV) and the discussions
which happened on the mailing list.

However, I wrongly used the term "updated comparison" about it when I
should really have talked about another point of view, which seems to
have caused some confusion.

> Also, you did not include a reference property example.  Why publish
> such a document that slags reference properties and yet not include a
> reference property example that you know exists?

Actually, as noted under "2. Motivation for EPRs", I intended to link
to your scenario #2 as a basis for discussion, which I failed to do
before sending it out before the week-end for people to see it before
the F2F.

Again, I hope that we can agree on a comparison and consider the
proposed ways (including Paco's) to close this issue.



Hugo Haas - W3C -

Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 05:18:28 UTC