W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > March 2003

discussion of 'tag' scheme

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:58:35 -0800
To: "'Tim Kindberg'" <timothy@hpl.hp.com>, "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001801c2f492$deae1b70$a4422099@MASINTER>

(from a private conversation about 'tag')

> Stepping back, note that I haven't defined a tag-specific resolution
> in the above.  Actually, as you've probably heard me say before, I
> written about web/id as such a thing
(http://www2002.org/CDROM/refereed/485/index.html) but 
> haven't yet written it into an ID.  It seems to me that it's
orthogonal to tag, 
> which is part of the "naming infrastructure" that web/id assumes.
> So does this notion of tag URI's as naming infrastructure help?

Yes. Any definition of a resolution mechanism is better than no
definition of a resolution mechanism. Any establishment of a context
for identification is better than no context.

Personally, I'm not too happy with 'cid' and 'mid', but I thought they
were acceptable since their use was in the context where there
was an established resolution mechanism. (The resolution mechanisms
for content-id and message-id in email infrastructure were already
well established.)

Any standard needs to state a domain of applicability. You might
be able to use it outside of the recommended domain, but the
statement at least sets the context in which the effectiveness of the
standard can be evaluated.

So if you were to state that the domain of applicability for 'tag'
was that it was intended to support the Cooltown project, I'd be
happier; I might wonder why the scheme wasn't called 'cooltown-tag'

Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 13:59:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:42 UTC