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

Re: RFC2396bis wording, opinions?

From: Mike Brown <mike@skew.org>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 12:32:59 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200405281832.i4SIWxeh081937@chilled.skew.org>
To: uri@w3.org

Pat Hayes wrote:
> OR, slightly better:
> 
> -----
> 
> The word 'resource' is used as a general term, meaning anything that
> can in principle be identified by a Uniform Resource Identifier; each
> URI scheme defines the range of things that are identified by URIs
> using that scheme. 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. However, URIs might be
> used to denote entities which are not accessible via the Internet,
> such as human beings, corporations, bound books in a library, and
> even abstract concepts. Some URI schemes are naming schemes which
> identify the things they denote, so that the scope of what counts as
> a 'resource' is limited only by the availability of URI naming
> schemes.

Just a minor suggestion... I realize it's just an example, but since
private TCP/IP based networks / intranets commonly employ URIs but are
not always considered "the Internet", I would prefer to say
  "objects or services accessible via a network such as the Internet"
rather than
  "Internet accessible objects or services",
and would say
  "not accessible via a network"
rather than
  "not accessible via the Internet".

-Mike
Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 14:32:55 UTC

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