W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

RE: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:17:57 -0500
Message-ID: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B62E@HQ5>
To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, www-tag@w3.org

From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]

>1. Few systems, with the exception of some of the SemWeb stuff, depend 
>on dereferencing namespace names to perform their basic functions.  The 
>reason they should be dereferencable is to support retrieval of 
>tutorial, reference, and bootstrapping resources for humans or agents 
>who discover previously unknown namespaces.

And "should" is operative and everyone seems to agree on that.

>2. I think it's a good idea to place information online and make it part 
>of the Web's information space.  The fact that the Web is not perfect 
>and resources may sometimes not be available does not change this.

A failure of web operation is a glitch to be fixed.  The assignment 
of a dereferenceable URI is governed by the policy for publishing the 
content.  It is not just a "good idea" when publishing to the web that 
such policy require the use of a dereferenceable address.  That is a 
systemic requirement which the policy must acknowledge.  However, it 
is the policy which governs this, not the web architecture.

>>... nefarious or incomptent....

>I stand by my concerns in regards anybody who has high-value reference 
>information which would increase the usability of their offering and 
>declines to make it part of webspace.  It's probably better just to say 
>that I feel this behavior is "wrong" and not speculate as to motives.

You do not deal with high security information or systems that must 
produce and maintain it, or policies that govern such systesm.  
You are not competent to make that call.

>One of your points has merit; since dereference is only meaningful in 
>the web context, it's obviously not a goal for namespace names that are 
>not going to be used in Web applications.  I think that since the 
>document being discussed has "Web" in its title, I think that piece of 
>context is implicit. 

Because massive and avoidable breaches of policy have occurred, one 
cannot depend on implicit requirements whose ambiguity can create 
further breaches.  Unless this is understood and enunciated clearly, 
the authority that governs web architecture is demonstrating incompetence 
with respect to some kinds and types of information.

It's hell when the shoe is on the wrong foot.

Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 13:18:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:52 UTC