- From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net>
- Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:26:45 +0200
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
* Sandro Hawke | | Can you rephrase this all without using words like "resource" and | "connected", which are just as nebulous as the rest of this, at this | point? I can only agree. Debate on this issue does not seem to have made much progress over the years, and terminological vagueness seems a large part of the problem. | What is that particular URI the name of? What does it identify? Here I wonder if you, Sandro, have not committed the same sin you accuse Larry of. What do you mean by "name" and "identify" here? Maybe I'm ignorant, but it doesn't seem obvious to me. I don't really like to be pedantic, but on this particular issue there seems no other way to get out of the fog. The only two terms that really seem universally unambiguous in this context are "URI" and "resolves to". When I see a string I can tell whether it's a URI or not, and if it is I can find out what (if anything) it resolves to. Beyond that everything is just fog, and the foggiest point of all (to me) is why anyone would want to make the URI and HTTP RFCs go beyond it. -- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
Received on Friday, 12 August 2005 15:26:59 UTC