- From: Bullard, Claude L \(Len\) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 09:41:01 -0500
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
It is reasonable to assume nothing until using the service. First access is blind. What the claims establish are the conditions to test by access (is this a weather report), and in some claims, repeated access (is this the best weather report). The proof is in the using. The metadata presents claims to be verified. The URI is agnostic to the metadata claims. It is the user that has to be reasonable through observation (use and memory of use). AFAIK, there is no architectural solution to a priori trust of information resources. The web is a caveat emptor system by design. Any claims-based system is. len From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com > "Moreover, the advertisement claims that the weather information > obtainable at those URIs is "the best", and hence Bob can reasonably > assume that any weather report retrieved from such a URI is both > trustworthy and current." These strike me as good suggestions. I don't want to quite commit to adopting them until I see what other guidance I get about those parts of the finding, but they do make sense to me, and I'll give serious thought to adopting them either as is or perhaps with some modification. BTW: it is really helpful for a variety of reasons when commentators offer short suggested edits like this. Doing so simultaneously clarifies the commentator's concern and also what an acceptable resolution might be. Of course, it may save the editor some time too! Much appreciated, thank you!
Received on Monday, 22 May 2006 14:41:13 UTC