W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2001

RE: What is the URI of Truth?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:59:24 +0300
Message-ID: <6D1A8E7871B9D211B3B00008C7490AA507958764@treis03nok>
To: sean@mysterylights.com, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Sean B. Palmer [mailto:sean@mysterylights.com]
> Sent: 08 June, 2001 17:27
> To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com; champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr;
> www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: What is the URI of Truth?
> > that there is IMO a clear and essential property of
> > URLs, that they define a location (or access
> > mechanism) by which to obtain content, which makes
> > them unsuitable, for philosophical (and practical)
> > reasons as universal identifiers/names.
> As Pierre-Antoine has already stated, not all URLs get back some
> resolvable content. For example:-
>    tel:+358-555-1234567

An address or a location is a point of access. I would argue
that the result of "dereferencing" a phone number is a phone
call. I.e., perhaps your browser dials your modem?

Even if there exist a few fuzzy cases, I still think that
the distinction between name and location is very very 
important and very useful, if not crucial.

I see that tel: URL as being very similar in nature to
a mailto: or http: URL. They are all points of access,
even though the nature of the content or the protocols
governing access or the mode of access might differ 

> It's a location, but the concept of "URL" doesn't state what it's the
> location *of*.
> > A namespace should be identified *only* with
> > a URN.
> If that were so, then there would have been something in the XMLNS
> specification about it. As it is, there isn't, so it's not. 


"An example of a syntax that is designed with these goals in mind is that
for Uniform Resource Names [RFC2141]. However, it should be noted that
ordinary URLs can be managed in such a way as to achieve these same goals."

I read this as "we think URNs are the way to go for identifying namespaces,
but if you really just gotta use URLs, you can hack them to work".

I'd say that's saying something about it in the spec. No, it's not mandating
URNs and only URNs, but it's certainly not saying "URLs are the way to go"
nor "all URIs are equally suitable".

> I rarely
> ever see URNs being used for namespaces.

Yup. Just as most folks on the planet crap in a hole...

;-)   or rather   ;-(


Received on Friday, 8 June 2001 10:59:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:36 UTC