W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2001

Re: Two questions about URIs

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:57:58 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101029b7f2241d5011@[]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
>Pat Hayes wrote:
>>  This seems to imply a three-way distinction with two mappings, rather
>>  than the simple two-way name/entity distinction suggested by the term
>>  'resource identifier'. A URI identifies (denotes?) a resource, which
>>  in turn has some *content* (the entities to which it currently
>>  corresponds):
>>  URI ----(identifies)---->resource-----(corresponds to)----->entity
>>  Apparently the identification mapping is fixed, but the correspondence
>>  mapping can change with time.  Is this a fair understanding of this
>>  text?
>>  If so, the entire notion of a URI simply denoting or naming
>>  something seems to need re-thinking.
>Why? The three way relationship is hardly new or novel:
>	object identifiers / objects / object state
>	scheme variable identifiers / variables / values

Not in the context of machine states and programming languages, no. 
In a general-purpose ontological model for all of human knowledge, it 
does require a little more thought. Since (I have been told) a 
resource can be anything, I am not sure what kind of general notions 
of 'state' or 'corresponds' can be used in such a very general 

>  > I request clarification of what this is supposed to mean, with
>>  particular reference to the intended distinction between 'resource'
>>  and 'entity', and between 'identifies' and 'corresponds to'.
>In the HTTP spec...

I meant in general. This passage is about resources in general, not just http.

Thanks for the feedback.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 13:57:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:03 UTC