RE: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft

Almost as good as a namespace name is dereferenceable 
and a namespace name is a name and should be dereferenceable.

The quandary or issue is the conflation of name, identity, 
location and retrieval.  It's a nice hack, it makes the 
web work, but it isn't a fundamental truth, just a neat 
way to get resources.  The owner has to determine when, 
if, and to whom an information unit is made a resource.

The use of URNs is not deprecated by the use of SHOULD. 
The owner has to determine when SHOULD applies.  The 
owner has to determine what information is to be 
disseminated and when and to whom.   The TAG can architect 
means to ensure that when, if, and to whom information 
is disseminated, it is done as reliably as the infrastructure 
enables, but all other decisions remain local. Support is gotten 
from the vendors and will become issues for common 
practice and interoperability where policy is set by 
other organizations.  Security interoperation is now 
explicitly a domain being spec'd and standardized by 
the WSIO, so this isn't a TAG issue above the plumbing.

This isn't an issue.  It is a philosophical debate 
that is devolving into a personal crusade.  We should 
drop it.  The TAG has more important business to 
conduct.

len

From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@openhealth.org]

This argument is a wonderful example for which the phrase "begging the
question" is properly applied. Such perfectly circular examples are not seen
frequently. I applaud Patrick on the construction of this paragraph.

Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 09:51:52 UTC