- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:59:53 -0400
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: danbri@w3.org, Public W3C <www-archive@w3.org>
So if I can try to summarize the positions... Both sides agree that using URIs to identify different things should be avoided. The pro-hash side suggests that this ambiguity is best addressed by constraining URIs to identifying cyc:ConceptualWorks. This has the advantage of simplicity, but the disadvantage that the fragment part of a URI is only seen by the client, not by HTTP intermediaries and servers. The pro-slash side suggests that it is best addressed by using a different URI to identify different things, or by being able to make assertions about the results of a GET. Intermediaries and servers can see the whole URI. From a "Do no harm" POV, the former appears more damaging in that many resources on the Web today aren't cyc:ConceptualWorks. Plus it reduces visibility such that intermediaries aren't nearly as useful (they can't tell which resource is being referenced, only which ConceptualWork). Mark. On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 08:51:51PM -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > > The nearest cyc term is (from previous discussions) > cyc:ConceptualWork. This something abstract, not concrete. > > The word "documents" has been used on this thread because it is shorter. > > Tim BL > > > > You're probably right, but is it also the case that all corporeal > > things > > are generally recognized as disjoint from "documents"? Books, for > > example? Or these legal papers on my desk? I'd say not. > > > > Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 14:22:45 UTC