W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2002

Suggested edit to Oct 29 arch doc

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 18:19:07 -0800
Message-ID: <3DCDC21B.8000001@textuality.com>
To: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>

There'll be lots more but this one jumped out at me.  In section 2.2.3 
there is a list of ways in which ambiguities in URI/resource 
relationships can crop up.  One important one that we spent a lot of 
time talking about got left out, and should be there as item 4 in the list:

Consider Herman Melville's "Moby Dick".  A URI might refer to a 
particular printing of this work (say by ISBN), or to the work itself in 
an abstract sense (for example, using RDF), or to the fictional white 
whale, or to a particular copy of the book on the shelves of a library 
(via the library's online catalogue web interface), or to the record in 
the library's electronic catalogue which contains the metadata about the 
work, or to the Gutenberg project's online version (currently at 
http://ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext01/moby10b.txt).  These are all quite 
distinct resources, and saying that the resource is "Moby Dick" doesn't 
help.  The author and users of a URI need clear shared understandings of 
what the resource being identified is.

[I see that Moby Diick crops up in a later note, but this is the context 
that the white whale arose in or previous discussions.]

  -Tim
Received on Saturday, 9 November 2002 21:19:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:12 GMT