W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2002

Re: URx Questions

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:11:37 +0200
To: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>, "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan@dantobias.com>
CC: URI <uri@w3.org>, URN <urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com>
Message-ID: <B871FC49.BF8F%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-01-21 16:25, "ext Michael Mealling" <michael@neonym.net> wrote:

>> By those standards, URPs may make more sense, since they are
>> explicitly defined not to resolve into anything.
> That _is_ one of the requirements of URNs. They were _never_ required
> to be resolvable in the first place. Many of the currently registered
> URNs will never have a resolution method because non will exist.
> So the lament that "nobody seems to really know how they're going to be
> made resolvable" is missing most of the point of URNs to begin with.
> But maybe that was our fault as well...

There is, I feel, a significant difference between might not resolve
and must not resolve. It is true that a resource denoted by a URN may
never have a digital representation instantiated at any given location,
but that doesn't make such a URN the equivalent of a URP.



Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 10:10:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:04 UTC