W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > November to December 2001

RE: What is at the end of the namespace?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:14:11 +0200
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B78877321144043114C09F@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: sean@mysterylights.com
Cc: www-talk@w3.org, uri@w3.org

> > No, HTTP URIs denote *web* resources. There's a
> > difference ;-)
> 
> Not if your definition of "resources" == "Web resources". The
> definition I use for Web resources and resources alike is:-
> 
> [[[
>          A resource can be anything that has identity.
> ]]] - RFC 2396
> 
> Courtesy of the URI RFC. It further states:-
> 
> [[[
>          Not all resources are network "retrievable"; e.g., human
>          beings, corporations, and bound books in a library can
>          also be considered resources.
> ]]] - ibid.
> 
> I'm not sure how it could be any clearer. 

You can't be serious...  

> Oh, hang on:-
> 
> [[[
>          The resource is the conceptual mapping to an entity or set of
>          entities, not necessarily the entity which corresponds to
> that
>          mapping at any particular instance in time.
> ]]] - ibid.
> 
> What more do you want? 

Well, for one, the realization that URI != HTTP URL.

Are you really going to tell me that because a *URI*  doesn't
have to resolve to something that a *HTTP URL* doesn't?

Pleeeeaaase.  ;-)


> Now, until you can find a piece of writing that
> states "HTTP is bound only to a set of things that can be explicitly
> sent back", then I'm going to take it that HTTP URIs can identify any
> resource, and that the thing that you get back over the wire is just a
> representation of that resource.

And I'll continue to cook weanies on my car engine, until
someone shows me where it's written that car engines are
*not* stoves.

You're in URL denial, Sean ;-)


> [...]
> > The biggest problem with using HTTP URIs for abstract
> > concepts or for indirect idenifiers (e.g. URNs) [...]
> 
> Ugh, why on Earth do you keep saying that? How are URNs "indirect
> identifiers"? 

As in they don't represent locations, only keys in a global
dictionary defined by the URN scheme.

> Nobody ever said that. 

I'm sure if I went digging, I'd find *lots* of references where
folks say that, but since it's so obvious (to me at least) I won't 
waste my time on that.

> They are bound to their resources
> in exactly the same manner as every other URI. There's nothing special
> about URNs excapt in the way that the authority to create the binding
> is delegated.

I completely disagree, and don't even know where
to begin in response to that. It's so "out there"...

> > [...] "People" get gonzo confused when some HTTP daemon
> > doesn't resolve it to "something".
> 
> So what? People get confused over Relativity and Quantum Physics as
> well (time can bend? light is a packet and a wave?), but it doesn't
> mean that these theories are wrong.

Yup. Major URL denial...  ;-)

Cheers,

Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 16:14:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:27 GMT