W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2005

RE: RFC 2822 email addresses in tag URIs

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:52:40 -0700
To: "'Etan Wexler'" <ewexler@stickdog.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-id: <001301c5d35c$b6c8c4b0$46832099@corp.adobe.com>

> >>You are suggesting it's no problem for one speaker group to be able
> >>to tag things with addr-spec values that plainly say "this is 
> >>mine"
> > 
> > The appearance of an addr-spec value in a tag URI does not
> > "plainly say" any such thing.   It's merely a convenient
> > way of making sure there are no conflicts.  This came up
> > in the discussion of the "tag" URI, although the point isn't
> > as clear as it could be in the actual document.
> Somebody please provide pointers to archived discussion on the matter.

To "plainly say" that "this is mine", you have to control the resolution
mechanism as well as the minting. If there is no authoritative
resolution mechanism, that must mean that I have as much authority
to say what tag:ewexler@stickdog.org,2005-10-15:Rightous_Truth means
as you do, once you've minted it.

If you think that by minting a "tag" URI, you also have the right
to control what others mean by it, well, that's inconsistent with
the arguments that "tag" wasn't really another URN scheme, because
the addr-spec wasn't really an "authority", and there is no
authoritative resolution mechanism:

What does a given tag denote?
That's undefined in the tag specification; you'd need to look at the particular
 protocol in which they are used. Tags constitute only a scheme for minting 
identifiers: there is no authoritative resolution mechanism.

 There is no authoritative resolution mechanism for tag
URIs; they may, however, be used as entity identifiers.

while with 'tag', there is no authority
to ask, and all of the semantics are inferred from
the context of use.

Or take the Atom blog entry with an id of 
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063265 -- is there something wrong because 
blogger.com might not have a direct way of knowing exactly what it was 
the id of?

 no function other than uniqueness

I'm philosophically opposed to the notion that there is such a thing as 
"the" resource. There are names; there are naming contexts that map names 
to other names or to resources; and there are resources (addressible 
functions). "The" resource that you speak of can only mean "the resource 
that this name maps to in this context".

For "tag", again, the
goal is to avoid any definition of any operational means
of identification,

it'll be software that produces tags by-and-large
Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 20:52:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:47 UTC