RE: Proposal: new top level domain '.urn' alleviates all need for urn: URIs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Clive D.W. Feather [mailto:clive@demon.net]
> Sent: 09 July, 2003 23:27
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: hardie@qualcomm.com; uri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal: new top level domain '.urn' alleviates all need
> for urn: URIs
> 
> 
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com said:
> > Er. Right. Like I said, the 's' in https: is a processing
> > instruction that results in different behavior from the server.
> [...]
> > One can denote the same resource with an http: URI, an
> > https: URI, a urn: URI, an ftp: URN, etc. and insofar
> > as the denotation is concerned, those URIs are opaque.
> > 
> > However, http: and https: URIs have IMO a special relation
> > in that whereas other lexical distinctions between two
> > URIs might correspond to a difference in denotation, alternation
> > between the http: and https: schemes for the otherwise
> > lexically equivalent URIs cannot and does not result
> > in any difference in denotation.
> > 
> > Any URI https://X denotes the very same resource as
> > the URI http://X,
> 
> This is complete and utter rubbish.

You may be right ;-)

> I have set up web sites where http://X and https://X, for the 
> same X, have
> resulted in completely different pages that then do different things.
> 
> In fact, the equivalence was between https://X/Y and 
> http://X/Itrustyou/Y

Though it is still important to make the distinction between
denotation and behavior (accessible representations).

Even though you may provide representations to someone you
trust that you wouldn't provide to someone you don't, that
doesn't mean the http: and https: URIs above don't denote
the same resource.

They may denote, e.g., a financial statement -- where a
representation provided to a trusted client is more
informative than a representation provided to an anonymous
client.

Neither different URIs nor different sets of representations
are a basis for inferring difference in denotation.

Likewise, equivalent sets of representations are not a basis
for inferring equivalence of denotation.

That's why we need tools such as RDF, OWL, and URIQA.

Patrick

--
Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
 
> -- 
> Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive@demon.net>   | Tel:    
> +44 20 8495 6138
> Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive@davros.org>  | *** NOTE CHANGE ***
> Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax:    
> +44 870 051 9937
> Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: 
> +44 7973 377646
>

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 09:34:17 UTC