- From: Jonathan A Rees (CC) <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 19:14:40 -0400
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Reto Bachmann-Gm¨šr <reto@gmuer.ch>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
I don't suggest handling the pathological cases. I just meant that the currently implicit assumption of non-pathology ought to be surfaced somewhere in the document. Jonathan. -- apologies for brevity / using handheld gizmo -- On Nov 2, 2010, at 15:35, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: >> >> There are two possible sources of instability, the URI -> resource >> mapping and the resource -> representation relationship. To be useful >> in the way that Larry wants it to be (e.g. for citation), DURI has to >> nail down *both* of these. The DURI names not the original resource, >> but a checkpoint of the original resource - a second resource whose >> representations are, and always will be, the representations that the >> original resource had at the given time. >> >> (using AWWW terminology here.) > > If you are dealing with pathological cases, such as a URI that changes > what resource it identifies over time, then you have other things to > worry about. For example, if protocol is not followed the the > different representations might not be of the same resource. In that > case the citation would be of a particular representation (not > captured by the duri). > > I think if you are going to handle such pathological cases, then > explanation and motivation has to be in the earlier section of the > document, where one would read about scope. > > -Alan
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 23:16:08 UTC