- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:20:01 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I am happy with my name on that ... if it adds no value having the WG endorse it then let's leave it at that. Jeremy Graham Klyne wrote: > > 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. > ]] > > Rationale: > > 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. > > #g > > > ------------ > Graham Klyne > For email: > http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact >
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2004 06:20:32 UTC