W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2003

RE: resources, stuffs and individuation

From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
Date: 23 Apr 2003 13:47:37 -0400
To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, uri@w3c.org
Message-Id: <1051120057.16598.130.camel@blackdell.neonym.net>

On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 13:42, Joshua Allen wrote:
> >   - could be mentioned by name (because it has one)
> > the latter view, roughly the "to be is to be
> > the value of a uri" view of 2396 resources, is one
> Wow, I am surprised that anyone would want to stipulate that something
> must already have a URI assigned to qualify as a "resource".  What
> possible use could there be in trying to argue about *that*?

The use is that it constrains the discussion and implementations to
something manageable. What I'm after is one term that applies to things
that a URI is bound to (what I call a Resource with the capital R being
intentional) and another, wholly seperate term for things that might
exist but which don't have a URI bound to them. That way systems like
LDAP v3 referrals can safely say they only deal with 'things' that have
URIs already bound to them.

It is very intentional on my part to design things such that, if it
doesn't have a URI, then it simply does not exist.

Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 13:50:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:05 UTC