- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:16:46 -0500 (EST)
- To: Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM (Norman Walsh)
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Very nice. My comments; - re the editorial note about b-nodes. The issue is not whether something *has* an identifier, but whether it *could*. Same goes for last paragraph in sec 2.2. I believe b-nodes could, but I'm no RDF guru. - I'd suggest avoiding the use of the term "home page", as I believe it to be an artificial construction by those who don't recognize that a URI can identify a real life thing. e.g. "Mark's home page is http://www.markbaker.ca" is equivalent to "http://www.markbaker.ca identifies Mark". In order to know what "http://www.w3.org" identifies, you have to ask the W3C. I assume that it identifies the organization. - "Dereferencing a resource identifier yields a representation of the current value of the referenced resource". This is tricky, because "current" can mean many things. I'd suggest removing "current value of the". - "or indeed after it has been retired". I'm not so sure if this is the case or not (though I would guess that it is not), but I don't believe it relates to the statement about how the identity of a thing can be assigned at the time of conceptualization, rather than the time of realization - "a URI consists of [...] and an optional fragment identifier". Oops! 8-) A URI does not include a fragment identifier! Ditto for 3.1; "If a URI contains a[sic] sharp character [...] is a fragment identifier". - sec 3.1 appears to be a bit schizophrenic. Fragment ids are for identifying part of a resource representation, not a resource. Also, I don't consider them a "design flaw" - they do what they are intended to do perfectly, people just use them in odd ways (RDF). Plus you may want to pick a different example than the HTML one, because of the name vs. id issue. - "This does not mean that the stream of bits associated with a URI (if, in fact, there is one) can never change". "the stream of bits" appears to suggest a single stream, when many are possible. I don't believe "associated" captures the resource/representation distinction. And re "if, in fact, there is one" - I believe it a property of all resources, that there will always exist at least one representation of each. - "it is perfectly reasonable for a resource to be identified by several different URIs". True, but less is best. How about "it is acceptable for", or something less encouraging than "perfectly reasonable" MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Sunday, 17 March 2002 10:12:06 UTC