- From: Olivier Fehr <Olivier.Fehr@ofehr.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:02:22 +0200
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Abstract <quote> ...of Web resources that are interconnected via URIs.. </quote> ->probably better to say 'can be interconnected', as they may exist in the same information space without any relation to each other. 2.1 Comparing Identifiers <quote> ..,it is generally not possible to be sure that two URIs that are not equivalent identify different resources. </quote> This follows from 'Web architecture does not constrain resources...' in 2. <quote> Agents should not assume... /Oaxaca and /Oaxaca identify the same resource,... Thus, the parties responsible for weather.example.com should not use... </quote> I don't think the 'thus' is necessarily correct, as the responsible for weather.example.com can simple determine, i.e. stipulate that both reference the same, whereas a agent is not free to assume that equivalence lacking a clear statement of equivalence from the responsible authority. 2.2 URI Opacity 'Good practice' Somehow confirms my believe above <quote> The example URI used in ... suggests... On the other hand, the "mailto"... </quote> As you say, the normative specification makes the difference. By assuming that a certain type of resource can be constructed by guessing the parts of an URI, an agent might well end up with something completely irrelevant to her/him/it. <quote> Editor's note...metadataInURI-31... </quote> For web services there is a WSD(L), for other content there is no such thing as a WCD (Web Content Description), so usually there is now way of knowing what is behind the starting URI, e.g. http://www.w3.org. 2.3. URI Schemes <quote> If the motivation behind registering a new scheme is to allow an agent to launch...such dispatching can be achieved by registering... </quote> While I agree, I would also add this might be an alternative if some patent holders have their way... <quote> The user of unregistered URI schemes is discouraged... </quote> Yes. After all an agent would have to support this scheme, thus making that approach unsuitable for broad Internet use. While I could do something like this internally, I would be building something proprietary which shouldn't be done except for very valid business reasons, but then I can register it... 2.5.2. Safe Interaction This seems to be a very limited definition of 'safe' from the agent's point of view. Seems more like a concept of liability or obligation... I think I stop here. It's getting rather long (and late) Cheers Olivier
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 18:07:02 UTC