- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:51:55 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
FWIW, I like the Metadata draft very, very much. I think it's on the short list of the most compelling and useful work that's come out of the Tag. I learned from it and I think many other readers will too. Mark Nottingham writes: > And now for something completely different... > > > As noted [1], I'm extremely pleased to see this draft, and am hopeful > that it will drive some interesting further work. A few comments; > > * I agree with the sentiment in the second editorial note; sections two > and three, while containing interesting information, don't justify > their length. I would advocate a severe editing down. FWIW, I respectfully disagree with my esteemd colleague Mr. Nottingham. I found the sections following the EdNote to be extremely valuable. I thing they will alert less experienced readers to a number of subtleties that would otherwise be clear only to experts. Were this a Recommendation I might argue as Mark does for sticking to a terse, normative core; given that this is a Tag finding, I think the purpose should be to educate and clarify. I like it better in long form. > * I disagree with the third editorial note's suggestion; there's a lot > of misunderstanding of the Opacity axiom, and this document should try > to help disperse it. Indeed. See comments above. One suggestion on the Tag's draft: I think you could be stronger in discouraging "observers" from inferring information from URI structure, even when there is a spec that licenses such inference. The point is finally made strongly in the conclusions where it says: "People and software using URIs assigned outside of their own authority should make as few inferences as possible about a resource based on its identity and inferences arising from delegated authority." ...but before that there is a lot of text telling you what you can do if you have read the spec for the URI scheme, etc. I think the tone could be a little more: if you think you need to look inside you're very probably wrong, or at least you're buying into a significant compromise. If that hasn't disuaded you, here are the rules for where you may look if necessary (e.g. what the scheme spec says), vs. what you should in all cases avoid (inference from filename extensions). It's just a matter of balance, I think all the right thoughts are in there somewhere. Thanks again, and congratulations. This is really nice work IMO. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:55:21 UTC