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

RE: httpRange proposed text

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:05:17 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C1060289E9@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

> > "If two people independently use the same URI as an identifier, they
> > should be able to have a reasonable degree of confidence that they
> > identifying the same resource.
> >
> > People should not be required to parse, dereference, or otherwise
> > acquire any *additional* disambiguating information to provide this
> > basic guarantee.
> >
> > Resource naming practices should be considered carefully, and people
> > strongly discouraged from naming resources in a manner that
> > unnecessarily weakens this guarantee."
> The intent seems good, but how on earth do you build this confidence?

That's not addressed by the proposed text.

> By relying on the human-language semantics of the opaque part of the

I don't understand.

> URI?  Does this scale to very large datasets?  Are you asking people

The second clause addresses scalability.  If people need to parse,
dereference, or otherwise provide *additional* disambiguating
information to have any reasonable confidence that their identical URIs
identify the same "thing", the system won't scale.

> Hmm... I'd be way more comfortable with a trusted provider of RDF
> assertions giving me lengthy-as-necessary descriptions of what any URI
> points to, even if it 

That's not precluded by the proposed text.  The proposed text says
nothing at all about how you find out *what* a particular URI
identifies.  It simply says that a single URI reliably identifies the
*same* thing, no matter what context it's used in.

(In other words, it's ignoring the issue of *how* you find out what a
URI identifies.)
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 19:05:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:53 UTC