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