See also: IRC log
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Oct/0073.html
saz: there's no need for uri:uri in public web
content, but there are situations where the URI is not unique
... so earl:WebContent should have an uri:uri additionally to a unique rdf:ID
(or rdf:about)
... information on how to use uri:uri and rdf:about should be in the guide
ci: WebContent is only for World Wide Web,
local file system or private web servers are not world-wide
... both use cases should be handled by FileContent
saz: WebContent is for Web (HTTP), not necessarily World-Wide
cv: or FTP or ...
saz: WebContent right now is focused on HTTP (request/response stuff)
cv: can't I use WebContent for ftp resources?
saz: you can
... it's not just HTTP
saz/cv: you can use WebContent for basic FTP operations (using ftp URI)
cv: subclass WebContent and put uri:uri into subclass
ci: private stuff needs uri:uri, public stuff doesn't
cv: rdf:about doesn't work with content negotiation
ci: so uri:uri must be used then
saz: make uri:uri optional (when needed)?
... used only when needed?
ci: we need to explain the use cases when to use uri:uri and when to use rdf:about, could be tricky
cv: don't see much difficulty in explaining
saz: we're talking about software developers, they should know their way
cv: when using http:GetRequest, uri:uri is not necessary on WebContent
ci: still think it could be difficult, but go on
saz: I now think to make uri:uri mandatory on WebContent
jk: if used on both classes, it must be the same, that's the only requirement I see
<scribe> ACTION: saz to write a follow-up on when and how many times to use uri:uri [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/08-er-minutes.html#action01]
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Oct/0072.html
saz: filename is subproperty of uri:uri
<shadi> file://index.html
jk: I wouldn't make it a subproperty, if it's not really a URI
AFAIK this means: the server host is index.html
file: ///index.html means: a file with the path index.html in the file root on the local host
ci: you cannot just put file: in front of it and think it's a proper file URI
saz: do we have a data type for file names?
... we can leave it completely open (forward/backward slash, case
sensitivity)
What is the benefit of using 'file://my/path/to/index.html' instead of 'index.html'?
or even 'my discosed index.html'?
<shadi> ./index.html
jk: this has no indication of URI scheme, could be file, ftp, http, or even relative to the EARL resource containing it
<shadi> ./www/index.html
<shadi> index.html
jk: then call it file path, because it's a relative file path
<CarlosV> file:./www/index.html
cv/saz: the use case is about finding files, not just labelling them
saz: are there issues with cv's example?
The path is '/www.index.html'
at least according to the Java implementation
oops, sorry
jk: confirmed
<CarlosV> file://localhost/./www/index.html
<CarlosV> ;-)
<scribe> ACTION: cv to post his thoughts on file name [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/08-er-minutes.html#action02]