RE: URI: Name or Network Location?

> It seems to me
> that the most obvious way of addressing this is to use a URI to denote
> the thing (i.e. a name) and a seperate way of talking about the
> numerous ways of locating information about it.

Hence INFO, see <http://info-uri.info/> ...

Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Phil Dawes
> Sent: 22 January 2004 15:23
> To: Patrick Stickler
> Cc: ext Sandro Hawke; www-rdf-interest@w3.org; Thomas B. Passin; ext
> Jeremy Carroll
> Subject: Re: URI: Name or Network Location?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> Patrick Stickler writes: 
>  > 
>  > Per your view, most URIs do not denote web pages, images,
>  > video streams, services, etc. but all denote "locations" and
>  > if we ever want to describe all those web-accessible resources,
>  > we need an entirely different set of URIs for them if we wish
>  > to talk about them.
>  > 
> 
> But surely the only reason this argument has weight is because there
> is usually only 1 way of retrieving that web resource* - i.e. HTTP. 
> Thus it becomes an attractive choice for naming it.
> 
> If the web hadn't turned out the way it has, and there were lots of
> protocols vying on equal footing for supremacy, then the 'it's a name'
> argument wouldn't seem so obvious. We would, as you say, probably have
> a way of talking about the web resource itself, and a seperate way of
> talking about the numerous ways of locating it.
> 
> The problem now is that we are attempting to use HTTP URIs to describe
> abstract concepts and physical objects, and so the 'it's a name'
> argument for HTTP URIs is suddenly non-obvious again. It seems to me
> that the most obvious way of addressing this is to use a URI to denote
> the thing (i.e. a name) and a seperate way of talking about the
> numerous ways of locating information about it.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Phil
> 
> * or the representation of that resource
>