Re: WEIRDS and use of fixed URIs

On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:

> from the real world: Assume you buy a refrigerator. You can put that anywhere 
> in your home (or outside if the garden is yours, too, or in somebody else's 
> home if you get their permission). But there's very little if anything that 
> you can configure inside the refrigerator. So nobody will put a refrigerator 
> on your lawn if you don't want.

The analogy is not right, as there is more than one model of refrigerator, 
varying in shape, color, integration in the room etc...

> In that sense, it seems to be a reasonable compromise. You can put the WEIRDS 
> interface on a server of your choice, at a path of your choice. But you can't 
> tweak the structure below that path.

Well, to keep the fridge/home analogy, why not adding more choice by using 
URI templates here (see RFC6570 [1]) instead of a "root URI". I'm pretty 
sure it was proposed as it seems that the best compromise between fixing 
the directory structure and being completely dynamic...

> Also, there's nothing forbidding to put related resources in the same 
> relative locations on different servers. In fact, one reason for the creation 
> of relative URI references is exactly that whole URI (sub)hierarchies can be 
> moved around or served from different locations at the same time.

There is nothing forbidding it, but it creates an a-priori knowledge of 
the semantic of the related URIs based on what we know from another one 
(the RDAP URL for instance).

> So in conclusion, WEIRDS will get off your lawn (and be happy with using 
> whatever space in whatever location you tell it to use), but as currently 
> specified, it won't let you tweak internal details in the space it is 
> assigned to. Actually, in some very general sense, WEIRDS could claim that 
> others should get off its turf once it gets a little corner assigned to it.
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
>> Cheers (and not wearing any hats),
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 20 Feb 2014, at 12:14 am, Yves Lafon<ylafon@w3.org>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> There is a discussion going on in apps-discuss [1] aboud weirds-bootstrap 
>>> [2]
>>> using a fixed URI path to address parts of their protocol.
>>> This seems to go against the spirit of AWWW on URI opacity [3] and mnot's 
>>> "URI Design and Ownership" draft.
>>> Do the TAG want to be part of that discussion?
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> [1] 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg11386.html
>>> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap/
>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-opacity
>>> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-01
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
>>>
>>>         ~~Yves
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves

Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2014 10:26:29 UTC