RE: Dates in URIs?

> What on earth elevated these character sequences to the 
> status of "metadata" about anything?

The draft TAG finding on "The Use of Metadata in URIs".

Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP
Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist
Computing Security Infrastructure
(206) 679-5933
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) [mailto:skw@hp.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:54 AM
> To: Renato Iannella; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; John Cowan
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Dates in URIs?
> 
> 
> I think John explained it nicely:
> 
> "The W3C often assigns a year number as the most significant 
> part of the URI path so that it can be sure that URIs are 
> unique over time, even as parts of the URI 
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ space 
> are created and destroyed."
> 

> 
> Stuart
> --
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf 
> > Of Renato Iannella
> > Sent: 09 November 2006 07:48
> > To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; John Cowan
> > Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Dates in URIs?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > John wrote:
> > 
> > > It does not.  The W3C often assigns a year number as the most 
> > > significant part of the URI path so that it can be sure
> > that URIs are
> > > unique over time, even as parts of the URI space are created and 
> > > destroyed.
> > > It is the TAG, not the particular resource, that dates to 2001.
> > 
> > Doesn't that make it even worse? - two bits of "metadata" 
> > stuck in the same URI only one of which is about the resource.
> > 
> > Noah wrote:
> > 
> > > Exactly.  I'd like to point out that John's observation is
> > completely
> > > consistent with the draft finding [1], which I think does 
> a pretty 
> > > good job of making clear that the only metadata 
> inferences you can 
> > > depend on are ones for which the "encoding of such metadata
> > [I.e. in
> > > the URI] is documented by applicable standards and 
> specifications".
> > 
> > I was not looking at Section 2.1 but Section 2.5.
> > 
> > Imagine I am Mary (don't try too hard) and instead of the 
> Bus, I see 
> > the report URL.
> > What is "suggestive" to Mary (a non W3C person) about those 4 
> > characters "2001"
> > has something to do with years. The same that Chicago is related to 
> > cities.
> > 
> > When I see this URL: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-CSS21-20061106/>
> > I get some good suggestions about its age.
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers...  Renato Iannella
> > National ICT Australia (NICTA)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------
> > This email and any attachments may be confidential. They 
> may contain 
> > legally privileged information or copyright material.
> > You should not read, copy, use or disclose them without 
> authorisation. 
> > If you are not an intended recipient, please contact us at once by 
> > return email and then delete both messages. We do not 
> accept liability 
> > in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, 
> > interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. This 
> > notice should not be removed.
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 9 November 2006 15:24:45 UTC