[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] More grumbling
* Lars Marius Garshol | | Here it is unclear what "automated discovery" is supposed to mean. | Discovery of what, by what means, and in what context? * Bernard Vatant | | I suppose that means capacity for search engines to distinguish the | "signal" of PSIs among "noise" of billions of ordinary URIs, which | is something like SETI search. What should we look for? I agree it | has to be more explicit. In that case, probably what we should do is to establish some way to assert that a certain resource contain a PSI set using XTM, RDF, and HTML. For HTML I think we should take a close and serious look at HTML metadata profiles. I think they would be simple enough for people to use, yet formal and powerful enough for what we need. See <URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.4.4.3 > | Indeed. We should be less fuzzy on that to reduice the noise. If we | recommend the use of the token "psi", we maybe should recommend a | more precise use of it, like its position in the URI string, and | maybe recommend a whole standard structure like: | http://psi.myorg.foo/scope/subject.html That means you have to own a domain in order to be able to create a PSI, and I don't think we really want that. It should be enough to own webspace in order to be able to create a URI. So I would very much prefer some form of structured metadata, as described above. | IMO what we want to achieve is to allow search engines - and also | humans - to distinguish with the less noise possible URIs who are | declared PSIs from those who are not. Of course we will not get rid | of all the noise, but we can put it down to a reasonable level by | recommending a given URI structure. Aha, so this is about humans, too, is it? I guess that means we should come up with some text that can be put in a PSD to identify the intention that it serve as a PSD. | [human-interpretable, yet stable] | | Could you explain exactly where you think the contradiction lies? I explained it below that statement: something that is meaningful to humans is something humans are likely to want to change at some point. * Lars Marius Garshol | | Steve's and Bernard's response to that was that in some cases you | will know up front that this is not going to be a problem. There are | two responses to that. | | The first is that if that were true it is still a problem that this | paragraph provides too little guidance on how to tell those cases | apart. To be really effective we should provide more guidance. * Bernard Vatant | | I think the example should show that better than any abstract prose | here. Well, I don't think the "apples and oranges" example is actually going to help anyone figure out when to use human-interpretable identifiers and when not to. And I agree that it certainly is difficult to come up with some abstract prose that provides useful guidance on when to use meaningful identifiers and when not to, but I am not at all convinced that doing so is within the scope of this TC. I think the best we can do is to either leave this issue alone completely, or else to write a general "best practices" document and cover this as one of the issues there. -- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC