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

2.3 URI Ambiguity

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:21:08 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-id: <000c01c3b777$1b59d850$0902a8c0@ATTIC56COVE>

First you say "don't use the same URI to refer to more
than one distinct resource".  That makes sense.

The next section says not to confuse URI ambiguity with
natural language ambiguity.  But it only gives an example of
the latter, and fails to make the critical distinction between
URI ambiguity and natural language ambiguity.  What is it?

The example of natural language ambiguity could also
be tightened up by removing the URI altogether.  It would
be better to just say "Moby Dick" is ambiguous because
it could mean: A, B, C...  Also, I think too many examples
are included.  Three would be more than enough.

2.3.1 URI in Other Roles is fallacious.  It says URI are
sometimes used other than to identify, but then it goes on
to give examples of URI identifying companies, websites,
people, mailboxes.  No examples are given in which a URI
is not used to identify something.

Bottom line:  you're saying "avoid using a URI to identify
more than one resource", and also "it's okay when a URI
sometimes identifies more than one resource" (e.g., you and
your mailbox, both).  Is there a critical distinction that
can be made so I can see why this is bad in one case and
good in another?

Is there a counterexample of the "avoid URI ambiguity"
practice that would help make that clear?

Is there enough critical mass in the concept of "indirect
identification" to warrant a definition of same?

Thanks, and sorry if the timing sucks,

Walden
Received on Sunday, 30 November 2003 14:24:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:22 GMT