W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2007

Re: What if an URI also is a URL

From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:58:52 -0400
Message-Id: <114683e41ce3b6bc7afbe7d3efd53a18@gmail.com>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>


On Jun 10, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> The problem is that the ID in OpenID and the I in URI both stand for 
> Identity/Identifier, but in very different senses of the word: OpenID 
> is about *authentication*, URIs are about *naming*. Your overreact 
> because you take Tim to mean the first sense when he meant the second. 
> Tim does not object to your use of your homepage to authenticate 
> yourself. He cautions us that we cannot use its URI to name you.

But what is the more general principle here? The document that Tim 
pointed to on "generic resources" gives the example of the Bible, and 
different versions of it: from generic to specific (something like FRBR 
distinctions among work/expresion/manifestation).

It then says:

"Each resource may have a URI. The authority which allocates the URI is 
the authority which determines wo what it refers: Therefore, that 
authority determines to what extent that resource is generic or 
specific."

I'm probably missing something, but it seems to me that this 
contradicts the notion that one cannot use a URI to refer to something 
which is not in fact the resolved document (the homepage in this case). 
"The Bible" seems entirely analogous to "M. David" the person in this 
case.

To be really practical, what does this URI refer to?

<http://worldcat.org/oclc/953128>

Is it the page which represents this particular version of Moby Dick, 
or might it in fact name the book itself, with the web page merely 
being a representation of it?

Whatever the answer, why?

Bruce
Received on Sunday, 10 June 2007 19:58:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:57 UTC