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:]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:19 AM
> To: ''
> 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:
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:17:48 +0000
> From: Graham Klyne <>
> To: Tim Berners-Lee <>
> CC: Sandro Hawke <>,
> References: <>
>
>
> 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
> <>
>
> --
> --- peterd
> Sr Security Architect
> Neustar, Inc. smtp:
> (571) 434 5516 jabber:
>
> <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
