W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > March 2002


From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:48:08 -0800
Message-ID: <3B286631A9CFD1118D0700805F6F9F5A066F867A@hou281-msx1.chevron.com>
To: "'Joseph Hui'" <jhui@digisle.net>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
It seems to me, then, that if is indeed a URI, then the
global IP addresses can be put into one-to-one correspondance with URI's by
a trivial relationship.  In that case, I think that my mathemetician friends
would start treating them as pretty much the same thing.
The reason I am pursuing this is that I am wondering whether it will make
sense in the architecture to say that participants in web services must be
identifiable by URI's (including in the sense above).  This would exclude
perverse things like telephone numbers, street addresses, and so on, and it
seems to me something like this is pretty much what people have in mind when
they are talking about web services.

Is Daniel Austin perhaps thinking along the same lines??

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Hui [mailto:jhui@digisle.net] 
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:55 PM
To: Hugo Haas; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: URI's

Thought the following portion of a previous message of mine
to Roger would +1 to Hugo's and help close out the issue.

 The two differ in purpose and syntax, among other things.
 Don't let URIs like confuse you. is an IP
address.  It's a part of a URI, but not  a URI, which comes with (the http)
scheme, separators, ...
 IP addresses are for identifying network nodes on the Internet.  URIs are
for identifying resources on (or even off) the web.  I can go on and on,
like trying to differentiate apple from orange.
 BTW, The reference to NAT only clouds your question.  
 It's irrelevant to differentiating IPaddr from URI.


Joe Hui
Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 10:14 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: URI's
> Hi Daniel and Roger.
> * Austin, Daniel <Austin.D@ic.grainger.com> [2002-03-01 11:56-0600]
> > I believe that IP addresses (all of them) are indeed URIs
> according to RFC
> > 2396 [1] section 3.2.2 (coauthored by Tim).
> Section 3.2.2 only addresses the authority component of a scheme 
> specicic part of a URI.
> In order to get a URI, you still need a scheme (section 3.1). So an IP 
> address by itself isn't a URI.
> Regards,
> Hugo
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - 
> tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 15:48:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:54 UTC