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

I don't think I meant anything odd by" use cases. In almost all of the examples I can think of, tdb needs a date to be meaningful because the lifetime of the thing described is different than the lifetime of the description. Maybe this is the design principle? That a well_designed uri scheme has the lifetime of utility of the Uri to resource mapping should match the lifetime of the resource....

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless


-----Original message-----
From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Thu, Feb 3, 2011 13:14:20 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: "tdb" and "duri" URI schemes...

These fixes all look fine to me.  Just one question...

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
...
> But I think it's a false economy to leave the date out, since most
> of the use cases for tdb that I can think of need a timestamp, because
> the lifetime of the resource described has nothing in common with the
> lifetime of the description.
>
> Anyway, I'm resisting. I admit that leaving the date out of tdb
> is feasible, because one could combine 'tdb' and 'duri', but I think
> of the two choices, I like the one I have since it matches better
> what I think the common use cases would be.

Can you tell me what a "common use case" might be for each of the two
schemes?  That is, what kind of agent would want to write down one of
these URIs, as part of what extant data format, and what would another
agent do when encountering one?

I have been assuming you aren't talking about anything related to RDF
or HTML or the needs of their user communities, and that you're mainly
presenting the specification mostly as a discussion aid so that when
someone says "duri" everyone knows what's being discussed. But now
that you're talking about use cases I'm not so sure.

Thanks
Jonathan