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

RE: URI's

From: Austin, Daniel <Austin.D@ic.grainger.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:55:03 -0600
Message-ID: <E0995D588DC3D211BB8D00805FFE353907358B20@ic.ic.grainger.com>
To: "'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)'" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, "'Joseph Hui'" <jhui@digisle.net>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Hi Roger,

	Well my background is mostly in physics and I haven't been a
professional mathematicican for a long time, but yes this is more or less my
point exactly. :)

Regards,

D-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
> [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:48 PM
> To: 'Joseph Hui'; Hugo Haas; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: URI's
> 
> 
> It seems to me, then, that if http://12.34.56.78 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 http://12.34.56.78 confuse you.  
> 12.34.56.78 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.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 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 17:56:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:55 GMT