W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2004

RE: Heads up: RFC2996bis, possible problem for RDF

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:00:09 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 15:53 18/02/04 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>However, I would not object to being a co-signatory on your suggested
>>textual change.
>I agree with Graham that this is a potentially serious problem that we 
>should nip in the bud. I also would like to be a co-signatory on the 
>proposed textual changes; Graham, please include me. I particularly like 
>the inclusion of the phrase " for purposes of retrieval" as it 
>acknowledges that URIs have other purposes.

OK, here's what I propose:

Further to my earlier message [1], I've discussed the issue of URI 
normalization with some colleagues and we'd like to propose the following 
small change of wording with respect to [2] (announcement [3]):


Section 6.1, para 2, final sentence:

The suggested change is to this sentence:
Therefore, comparison methods are designed to minimize false negatives 
while strictly avoiding false positives.

To be:
Therefore, comparison methods are designed to minimize false negatives 
while strictly avoiding false positives when used for purposes of retrieval.


This reinforces the earlier comment that "URI comparison is performed in 
respect to some particular purpose" [section 6 intro], and I think provides 
the necessary get-out for those purposes other than retrieval for which the 
normalization processes described can result in false URI-equivalence (i.e. 
in circumstances where existing applications may legitimately deliver 
differing results).

Graham Klyne
Jeremy Carroll
Pat Hayes

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Feb/0094.html

[2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-04.txt

[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf-announce/Current/msg28902.html


The IETF debating culture is slightly different, so the multiple 
signatories count for less than the quality of the argument, but I don't 
think it harms.


Graham Klyne
For email:
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2004 05:04:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:27 UTC