- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 22:53:07 -0400
- To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Cc: wsawg public <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
My 2c on this one ... On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 01:34:35PM -0400, Christopher Ferris wrote: > D-AR009.3 > "All conceptual elements should be addressable directly via a URI reference." > > > HP: This belongs under D-AC011 Agreed. > > IBM: Should say 'identifiable' instead of 'addressable' Sure, that works for me. > > PF: I would prefer that URIs, rather than URI references, be used. Also, this should probably be > relocated to D-AC-011. > > CVX: I'm not quite sure I understand what this means, but at least it says "should". I would be > happier if this were a bit softer, as in "An effort should be made to make conceptual elements > addressable by URI's". I don't like having requirements that sound to me like they might be > impossible. It is reasonable to accept such risk in a research project, but less so in this sort of > WG. Identifying things with URIs is a really easy and cheap thing to do, as long as you're able to give them some semblance of persistence. I personally think that "should" is fine; if it really is too much of a burden for you, then don't. Otherwise, do. So how does "All conceptual elements should be identifiable directly via a URI" sound? MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2002 22:44:40 UTC