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

> Dated uri does seem like a very useful addition to the web, however it's 
> semantics could be simplified as such:

I'm not sure how you suggest the semantics be simplified. I'm 
in favor of simplicity but...


> I'm unsure whether you want to address dereferencing, perhaps better 
> said as dedurieing, in the spec - but it's certainly one of the first 
> things people will do with any duri, they'll chop the scheme and date 
> off and do what they normally do with the uri. But perhaps this is so 
> obvious that it doesn't need spec'd!

See section 6.4 paragraph 2. Is there more needed?


> Regardless, I strongly feel that "Thing Described By" would be best 
> dropped, it's confusing at the least,

I agree that it might be confusing, but I personally see a great
difference between me and my web page, and that when I say
"http://larry.masinter.net", I have to mean one or the other
(or perhaps both), but that they aren't the same. I haven't come
across anyone who was confused about what 'tdb' was trying to do.

> can you imagine how many will ask 
> "what's the difference between a duri and a tdb?"

I haven't seen anyone asking this question... are you?

> and it's a valid 
> question even now, "when should I use a tdb instead of a duri? and are 
> the consequences of using the wrong one?" - 

Those are good questions, but the answers depend on context,
and I can't find a context where there is an actual question
about it....

> and in reply to the reply to 
> that question, if there are no consequences then why make a distinction? 
> and if there are consequences then are you prepared to introduce that in 
> to the web?

There are consequences.
I don't think that providing a way of distinguishing me from my web
page "introduces" the consequences.

> On a side note, is there a reason why a dated uri has a scheme, why not 
> simply:

>    <timestamp>:<encoded-URI>


Because people want a URI, something that fits into the URI syntax
in which the "scheme" determines what you mean.

Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2010 07:59:54 UTC