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

RE: URI denumerability

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:48:18 -0500
Message-ID: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B8F8@HQ5>
To: "'Matthew Wilson'" <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk>, www-tag@w3.org

Yes.  I got that.  Now, are the magnitude of resources 
on the web countable?  If they are tied to location, 
yes.  I would think this is not a problem for the URI 
as a locator, but as an identifier divorced from the 
emergent process properties (if assigned randomly 
or by some process not dependent on location), it might 
be.  I should think that would trouble the RDFers but 
not the XMLers.  In other words, it isn't a very good 
id system for potentially unlimited abstractions 
and the degree of it being a problem would be in the 
term "potential".  I don't think I'll be around when 
that potential manifests; so from a system perspective, 
no, it isn't.

In short, it's fun to argue about the number of angels 
that can stand on a pin, but is it useful to try to 
get the definitive answer?  God only knows but only 
God cares.  Avoid triple-omni requirements.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Wilson [mailto:matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk]

>Cantor rants are fun but precisely
>what is one trying to prove/clarify
>with that?

Well, it means that the real numbers (or anything of the same magnitude) 
cannot be identified by URIs. So either there are resources which cannot be 
assigned URIs, or there are things we can talk about and meaningfully 
describe which are not resources.

I don't know whether that is a problem or not.
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:48:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:11 GMT