W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2003

Re: 2.3 URI Ambiguity

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:42:03 -0500
To: algermissen@acm.org
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-id: <001a01c3b93e$ba37dd00$0902a8c0@ATTIC56COVE>

So then the Best Practice would be "don't use URIs
ambiguously"...  whatever "use" means.  It still sounds
the same to me.

Since identifiers exist for the purpose of eliminating
ambiguity, and URIs are just a class of identifier, is it 
really  necessary to exhort people to use them
for their intended purpose, i.e., to use them "un-
ambiguously"?

(Is that a rephrasing of your point, Len?)

Walden

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jan Algermissen" <jalgermissen@topicmapping.com>
To: "Walden Mathews" <waldenm@optonline.net>
Cc: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>; <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: 2.3 URI Ambiguity


: Walden Mathews wrote:
: > It's not clear that "URI ambiguity" is
: > actually observable. 
: 
: From a lurker:
: 
: Would it help to rename the issue "URI usage ambiguity", thus emphasizing
: that URIs are never ambiguous but that they way they are used might be?
: 
: Jan
: 
: 
: 
:  Again, the examples...
: > 
: > Walden
: 
: -- 
: Jan Algermissen                           http://www.topicmapping.com
: Consultant & Programmer                   http://www.gooseworks.org
: 
: __________ NOD32 1.568 (20031202) Information __________
: 
: This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System.
: http://www.nod32.com
: 
: 
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 20:42:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:23 GMT