- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 19:32:57 -0400
- To: "Jonathan A Rees (CC)" <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Jonathan A Rees (CC) <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: > 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. I concur. -Alan > > -- 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 23:33:46 UTC