W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > May 2004

RE: removing constraints on 'resource' [024-identity]

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 07:30:03 -0700
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-id: <0HYF0033VHMC0U@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

> >                                             each URI scheme
> >        defines the range of things that are identified by
> >        URIs using that scheme.
> 
> That's the only part I can't live with; I believe that any constraint on
> what a particular URI identifies is a result of interactions with the
> URI only.

Are you saying that you think the scheme definition *doesn't*
define the range of things identified by URIs using that scheme?
I'm wondering why you think we have different URI schemes, if the
resource-identifier to resource-identified mapping isn't defined by
the scheme. 

>  And while, in practice, that's often related to the scheme,
> it's not mandated that it be so. 


Anyone is free, in a Humpty-Dumpty way, to use any term to mean whatever
they want it to mean, but at least in this document, I think we are in
a position to explain how URIs are expected to work. And I don't see
anything
wrong with the expectation set up that the scheme definition has a
central role. 


> But it seems to me that removing that
> part wouldn't change your message substantially.  Any objections?

It leaves out some interesting and useful information.
Maybe you could explain something that is harmed
by the assertion in question?


Re:

> Commonly, URIs are used to identify Internet accessible objects or
> services; for example, an electronic  document, an image, a service
> (e.g., "today's  weather report for Los Angeles"), a collection of
> other resources.

vs. 

> Commonly, URIs are used to identify Internet accessible objects or
> services; for example, an electronic document, an image, a service
> providing today's weather report for Los Angeles, a collection ...

FWIW, that part of the sentence was left from the previous text.

The problem is that the examples, when flattened, aren't really parallel; 
'an electronic document' is a general category like 'a service',
while 'today's weather report for Los Angeles' is a very specific
service, which, to be parallel, might need 'an electronic document
such as a news article in the New York Times'.

So while I agree that the original you're correcting is awkward,
I'm not happy with the amendment. Frankly, I'd just as soon leave it.
Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 10:32:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:51 UTC