Re: URIs: resources and contradictions was: Re: httpRange proposed text

Michael Mealling wrote,
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 01:25:24PM +0100, Bill de hÓra wrote:
> > And my main objection is not that it is less right to make URIs and
> > resources synonymous, or that it is not aesthetically appealing to
> > me, but that it leaves something important unsaid. By not
> > axiomatising ambiguity we leave it a ghost in the system; perhaps
> > by claiming that it is not there (an untruth), or claiming that it
> > is 'obvious'; as we all know it's there it needs no further
> > treatment. The benefits of certainty are so many, it's hard to let
> > it go.
>
> The point is not that its being left unsaid. Its that those things
> exist at another layer/component within the architecture. Its the
> same way that IP doesn't say anything about session contexts. TCP is
> by and large the most used Layer 4 protocol but just because its
> popular doesn't mean we replace IP with it....

So am I right in thinking that your answer to the question "What is the 
range of the HTTP dereference function?" would be that it's undefined 
because that question has to be answered relative to another layer, be 
it REST, RDF or whatever?

If that would be your answer, then how would it differ from saying that 
http: URIs are ambiguous (ie. don't have determinate reference without 
additional contextual information)?

Cheers,


Miles

Received on Sunday, 4 August 2002 11:42:57 UTC