- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:57:06 -0500
- To: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Good comments, Walden. > The example of natural language ambiguity could also > be tightened up by removing the URI altogether. It would > be better to just say "Moby Dick" is ambiguous because > it could mean: A, B, C... Also, I think too many examples > are included. Three would be more than enough. Agreed. > 2.3.1 URI in Other Roles is fallacious. It says URI are > sometimes used other than to identify, but then it goes on > to give examples of URI identifying companies, websites, > people, mailboxes. No examples are given in which a URI > is not used to identify something. Agreed. > Bottom line: you're saying "avoid using a URI to identify > more than one resource", and also "it's okay when a URI > sometimes identifies more than one resource" (e.g., you and > your mailbox, both). Is there a critical distinction that > can be made so I can see why this is bad in one case and > good in another? I personally don't see a distinction. > Is there a counterexample of the "avoid URI ambiguity" > practice that would help make that clear? > > Is there enough critical mass in the concept of "indirect > identification" to warrant a definition of same? The previous text went further into that, but I think it's good that this text did not. IMO, indirect identification is ambiguous. Moreover, I don't know any other way to be ambiguous than to use indirect identification. Maybe that's just me though; I'm happy to be shown to be incorrect, but 2.3 doesn't do that, AFAICT. I also wanted to point out that my previous concern[1], which Dan suggested[2] that the revised text may address, still applies to this text. Specifically, it seems to take a position on httpRange-14 (the wrong one in fact, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it 8-). As for how to move forward, I'd personally just like to see the existing good practice note combined with a single example describing what ambiguity is; the database merging one seems fine (minus the preamble). Thanks. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Nov/0046.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Nov/0047.html Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Monday, 1 December 2003 09:54:44 UTC