W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Private naming conventions and hypermedia (was Re: Draft minutes from TAG telcon of 2008-07-24

From: dev <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:48:00 -0700
Message-ID: <ecf35a1b0807252348l3e57490nddd32c4827626d69@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

> (1) and (2) are replications of the resource identified by the abstract
> identifier (3).   They may be identical (and then again they may not), but
> by what definition of "resource" are they the same resource?

Am I wrong in thinking that if two resources have the different URI
they are different ? We really don't care about whats the actual
content inside is , do we ? Aren't you loosing the resource
abstraction if you try and go deeper inside what each resource
represents / returns /  whether its replicated or not etc. ?


>  Can you offer a suggestion that meets the requirements of the
> applicant and also preserves the benefits of an HTTP URI?

Although I don't know the requirements, I will say that whatever be
the requirements it is always better to use hyper links than hard code
any sort of state transition at the client side (i.e hard code an
assumption at client side).

Thanks
Devdatta



2008/7/25 Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>:
>
> I don't believe that:
>
> (1)   http://loc.gov/ark:/12025/654xz321
> (2)  http://rutgers.edu/ark:/12025/654xz321
> (3)  ark:/12025/654xz321
>
> Identify the same resource.
>
> (1) and (2) are replications of the resource identified by the abstract
> identifier (3).   They may be identical (and then again they may not), but
> by what definition of "resource" are they the same resource?
>
> As I see it, if you (hypothetically) were to resolve  ark:/12025/654xz321
> then you are happy to get any replication.
>
> But http://loc.gov/ark:/12025/654xz321  resolves to the replication (of the
> abstract resource identified by ark:/12025/654xz321) that resides at
> loc.gov.   (Please see "aside" below.)
>
> And http://rutgers.edu/ark:/12025/654xz321  resolves to the replication (of
> the abstract resource identified by ark:/12025/654xz321) that resides at
> rutgers.edu.
>
> (Aside: loc does not participate in ARK, the ARK specification mistakenly
> lists loc. But for discussion sake consider this a valid example.)
>
> So as I see it, (1) and (2) are different resources.  And (3) is a third
> distinct resource.
>
> --Ray
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
> To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
> Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 12:41 PM
> Subject: Private naming conventions and hypermedia (was Re: Draft minutes
> from TAG telcon of 2008-07-24
>
>
>>
>> > HST [...] I think there's a fundamental issue we need to be clear on: is
> it OK for a group of domain name owners to agree a naming convention amongst
> themselves? In the ARK case, this trespasses on the WebArch advice wrt
> aliasing, and in general might also seem to fall foul of the whole business
> of URI opacity (that was Mark Baker's particular concern).
>>
>> "URI Opacity" is a term that I've found means different things to
>> different folks, so I try to avoid it now.  But I do believe that
>> private naming conventions do cause harm to the Web because they are
>> essentially a proprietary form of link and link metadata.  If two URIs
>> at different domains identify the same resource, dereferencing one of
>> them should provide a declaration (Link header, RDFa, whatever) that
>> the resource is the same (owl:sameAs or equivalent) as the other.
>>
>> >From a REST perspective, the architectural constraint that's being
>> disregarded by this practice is "hypermedia as the engine of
>> application state", and IMO, it's the constraint most responsible for
>> imparting Web-nature.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2008 14:03:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:23 UTC