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

RE: Resources and URIs

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:52:59 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90D46@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <GK@ninebynine.org>, <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: 28 April, 2003 18:08
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> Cc: uri@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Resources and URIs
> 
> 
> At 14:54 28/04/2003 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > > >So I think there are two questions:
> > > >
> > > >(1) what is a resource?
> > > >(2) does a URI identifiy a single particular resource?
> > > >
> > > >I think the answer to (2) is "yes" by my understanding 
> of URIs (e.g.
> > > >RFC2396 section 1.1:  "An identifier is an object that 
> can act as a
> > > >reference to *something* [that has identity]."  Even if 
> you ignore
> > > >the problematic words [that has identity] (I think 
> they're redundant
> > > >here), I think the words still say that the identifier 
> refers to a
> > > >single entity:  "something" is singular.
> >
> >Graham, do you mean here that, at least by design, URIs 
> should not be 
> >overloaded
> >to denote more than one thing?
> 
> I mean *in a given interpretation* a URI should not denote 
> more than one 
> thing, using the term interpretation in its MT sense.

Right. Then I understood you correctly. Good.

> (My reading of Pat's point is that different interpretations 
> may provide 
> different denotations, and to try and prevent that is 
> tantamount to logical 
> pixie dust, and I want to avoid such stuff if I can.)

I follow you and Pat on that, which is why I've tried to couch my
latest verbage along the lines of "there *can* be different
interpretations, but we *presume* there is only one".

Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 02:53:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:31 GMT