- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:05:43 -0700
- To: "Michael Mealling" <michael@neonym.net>
- Cc: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <uri@w3c.org>
> 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. OK, that is reasonable. Aren't you just saying that at any particular point in time, some resources will have one or more URIs bound to them, and others will not have any URIs bound? You want a way to distinguish between those two classes of resources. That is very practical demand and no point arguing about it. > 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. You can easily make the case that "resources that do not have a URI are completely invisible and unusable to me until they are assigned a URI". But that is not exactly the same as saying "resources which do not have a URI do not exist in reality". The former statement seems completely adequate, and the latter seems to be unnecessarily provocative and is just begging for a fruitless argument. Why the heck would anyone care? What is wrong with the former?
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 14:05:52 UTC