Perhaps I read more into Identifier than is warranted. I interpreted this
as a Link identifier (A URI in our current dominant idiom).
Does this distinction make it clearer?
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Cox [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 10:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: "name" is not an element refinement, its an encoding scheme
Amongst the proposed "Semantic Refinements" for (Agents) are
* name
* identifier
IMO these do not make sense, in this position, so I voted to reject.
But (again!) I seem to be the only one with this position, so I'd like
to understand if I'm missing something.
I think we all understand that the "value" of the agent elements is a
party (person or organisation) or process (instrument, software, event,
etc).
More specifically, the value *identifies* the party or process which has
a connection with the resource.
Following this logic, "identifier" is completely redundant as a qualifier
(the value of (Agent) is *always* an identifier ...),
while "name" is one *encoding scheme* for identifiers.
Where have I gone astray?
--
Best Simon
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|