[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] TAG discussion of versioning in URIs
Gabe, 1) When I read through it I noticed that the second link you provide below is not a message from Tim Berners-Lee but Tim Bray. 2) If you scroll back to the original message to which the TAG was responding, it is a long message in which Ossi Nykänen of Finland is trying to explain how very useful it would be if the W3C provided some form of standard for version metadata. He says: "In other words, the point that I'm trying to make is that if we all use our _own_ ways to give references to our metadata (that's what we're doing today), we face great difficulties in practise. You use "Up-to-date:", I use "Version-controlled-resource:", Zaphney uses element <meta> in the content, etc. If there was a clear, W3C-endorsed recommendation about which policy to follow, making SW/WS applications would simplify a great deal (a uniform reference to "all" metadata declared by a resource, i.e., a single access point where to look metadata from)." That's a great summary of my key point about why basic version syntax should be part of the core XRI syntax spec. We don't have to specify all the versioning syntaxes in the world - those can be extensions - but we need to supply the basic syntax and the ability to extend it. 3) One more key point about version metadata in XRI's: there may be an infinite amount of potential metadata about a resource, but to my knowledge only one class of metadata (besides the raw identifiers themselves, as they can be considered metadata) is essential to actually identifying the resource in question, and that's version metadata. In other words, if you want to point to an object but there are multiple versions of the object and you don't have a way to identify which version is the target, then you actually can't identify it. =Drummond -----Original Message----- From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 6:14 PM To: 'xri@lists.oasis-open.org' Subject: [xri] TAG discussion of versioning in URIs TAG has accepted for discussion the issue whether metadata should be part of URIs. They include versioning as a type of metadata. As far as I can tell, the TAG believes that versioning (along with other metadata) should NOT be part of URIs. See the issue summary here: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#metadataInURI-31 And read Tim Berner-Lee's comments here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Nov/0187.html I'm not sure there's been a lot of discussion (relative to a lot of other topics) about versioning, but there seems to be a consensus among those on the TAG that versioning of URIs is a nonstarter. I'm not sure that they've really explained the issue with versioning besides to say "its complicated". I happen to agree that the interpretation of versions can be complicated, but I am not sure if we are going to deal with that complication here or whether it becomes an application issue (for applications using versioned XRIs). -Gabe
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]