- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:10:58 -0400
- To: "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan@tobias.name>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
Daniel R. Tobias scripsit: > > A fine thing indeed. How would you formally characterize the > > relationship of the above URI to Shakespeare? > > Easy... It's a URI that at one point led to a bunch of bytes that, > when displayed in the appropriate image viewer, resembled some > artist's conception of what Shakespeare looked like. Dereference the (cached) URL! > At present, it > leads to a 404 Not Found page that has no obvious connection with the > Bard. Let's neglect that, and consider what it "meant" in its heyday. > It's not "the URI of Shakespeare", or even (any more) "a URI > to an image of Shakespeare"; any connection that URI might have to > the playwright is in the minds of those who may have used or linked > to it, not anything inherent in the URI itself. Clearly not inherent in the URI itself. But what connection does the *resource* (not the URI, not the representation) have with Shakespeare? -- What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the John Cowan sound of a [Ww]all that people have stopped jcowan@reutershealth.com banging their head against? --Larry http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 12:11:16 UTC