[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] [Fwd: Re: Clarifying what a URL identifies (Four Uses o f aURL)]
Thanks Peter, This was exactly the point I was trying to highlight during the call and which you have described so succinctly. I agree that the right place for this is in the requirements draft but also believe that a high level synopsis should be incorporated into the charter as a way of conveying to our audience our appreciation of the gaps and overlaps with other work in the same space. I think that the two documents will probably evolve in parallel. I'll take responsibility for the charter piece of it. Marc > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter C Davis [mailto:peter.davis@neustar.biz] > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:19 AM > To: 'xri@lists.oasis-open.org' > Subject: [xri] [Fwd: Re: Clarifying what a URL identifies (Four Uses of a > URL)] > > This prompts me to raise an issue, which i think is incompletely > addressed with laisons to other standards bodies: > > I think we need formal language (in the requirements draft) which > ecourages the research into complimentary and conflicting resource > expression methodologies. > > Having said that, todays mention of outside entities questioning the > need/benefits for this TCs output (which drives clarification in the > requirements draft), goes a long way to this end. Clear articulation of > the gaps in current resource identifier notations should be included in > the introduction. > > The W3C TAG, in particular, is likely to keep a scepticle eye, until > these shortcommings are well laid out. > > --- peterd > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Clarifying what a URL identifies (Four Uses of a URL) > Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 06:42:20 -0500 (EST) > Resent-From: www-tag@w3.org > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:17:48 +0000 > From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> > To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> > CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org > References: <200301212127.h0LLRNA15108@wadimousa.hawke.org> > > > At 10:02 PM 1/22/03 -0500, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > >One *can* introduce a new system with a different design > >and argue its merits. Sandro has designed an alternative > >system http://www.w3.org/2002/12/rdf-identifiers/ > >which seems consistent and I haven't finished thinking > >about - there are things I like about it and things I don't. > >But it does address all the questions, I think. > > FWIW, I think Sandro's proposal is consistent with the current state of > RDF > specification, and other views of URIs that have been expressed here, > except maybe the view that http: URIs (without fragments) should always > denote documents (I hope I don't misinterpret). My point of divergence > with that proposal is the suggestion it should be part of the RDF core, > because I don't see the necessity for it to be there. > > The formal semantics for RDF does tell us one thing, though: in a given > interpretation of an RDF graph (document, or collection of documents > considered together), a given URI must always denote the same single > thing. So we can't have a graph in which a URI sometimes denotes a car > and > elsewhere simultaneously denotes a picture. > > #g > > > ------------------- > Graham Klyne > <GK@NineByNine.org> > > -- > --- peterd > Sr Security Architect > Neustar, Inc. smtp: peter.davis@neustar.biz > (571) 434 5516 jabber: peter.davis@checkov.neustarlab.biz > > <Quote type="random"> > The pursuit of perfection often impedes improvement. > <Author>George F. Will</Author> > </Quote> > > PGP Fingerprint: > 8994 8774 B682 3A04 B304 C4A2 D9DD 7E5B 8AAC 2D00
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC