Re: "tdb" and "duri" URI schemes...

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> > This idea has been bouncing around for such a long time,
> > but I updated the document
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-07
> >
> > based on comments.
> >
> > While this isn't posed as a "TAG" submission, since the
> > TAG has been discussing persistence for a long time,
> > are there any changes you think I should make (references,
> > discussions, etc.) I should make before asking for this
> > to be published?
> >
> > Larry
> > --
> > http://larry.masinter.net
>
> A few comments: (your draft is indented, my comments outdented)
>
> I hope that you will be coordinating with others who are
> working on similar issues.
>
> Somewhere you need to include a warning that two clients can observe
> completely different content for the same resource, at exactly the
> same time.  Time is not adequate to "identify" anything about what
> anyone actually observed since it potentially depends on all the
> details of the observation (IP address, cookies, which physical server
> responded, etc.).  All a DURI really says is that someone observed
> something at the given URI at a certain time - and this has to be
> taken on trust.
>

I don't think that this distinction is relevant, in my understand a DURI is
completely independent on what anyone observes it is just what the URI
without time meant at the specified time. What you say is true for HTTP URI,
independently of the time people may get different representations
(including corrupted ones), nevertheless at a specified point in time (and
cool URIs not just then) an HTTP URI has a one thing it identifies.

Reto