- From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:30:14 +0100
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
At 08:52 AM 7/8/00 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote: >I'd like to propose that the W3C impose a moratorium on specifications >using URIs and URI references for identification except in cases where >retrieval is both expected and specified, and where the type of resource >identified by the URI or URI reference is specified as well. I cannot agree, since this would effectively stifle any developments based on RDF. (To "expect and specify" retrieval for everything that is identified in an RDF graph would, I think, be unreasonable.) >There isn't very much common understanding of URIs _as identifiers_, Unfortunately, this seems to be the case (or maybe too much understanding, just not all in agreement?-). >Specifications that want to use URIs as identifiers may do so by providing >a formal description of the resource type to which the URIs apply, and >identifying clearly how those resources are to be used/ignored/discarded by >applications. Are you talking here about _resources_ or _entitities_? Where is the concept of "type" of a resource defined? >Alternatively, the W3C could formally specify what URIs _mean_ in general, >and how applications should deal with them when used in particular >(semantic) contexts. Saying "it's a resource" is not enough. I would like to see a formal specification of "resource". (I have my own working ideas, but am still not sure if they align with more widely held expectations). >Yes, I understand that this may feel like a horrible set of constraints to >a sizable group of people who like URIs in their present state. On the >other hand, it will go a long way toward making XML tools work as expected, >by giving us only as much rope as we need to hang ourselves, and not >everyone else on the Web as well. As expected _by whom_? Part of the debate here, I think, is that there exist different expectations about how things should work. The current effort seems to be to minimize the extent to which those expectations are frustrated. #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Tuesday, 11 July 2000 09:16:12 UTC