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

RE: URI's

From: Joseph Hui <jhui@digisle.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:02:31 -0800
Message-ID: <C153D39717E5F444B81E7B85018A460B081B2723@ex-sj-5.digisle.com>
To: "Austin, Daniel" <Austin.D@ic.grainger.com>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Hi Roger,

I can see your math friends may succeed in proving an
isomorphism between address sets in IP and URI spaces.
It'll be their prerogative to treat the two the same
at their own peril not unlike calling birds turkeys 
because turkeys are birds.

That aside, it's been established that IPaddrs are no URLs.
(An IPaddr conveys no scheme for resource access, got
starter.)  Your friends will have to prove IPaddrs
are URNs, or some other class of URI.  If they fail,
that's end of it.  If they succeed, then the goalpost
may be moved, with URI replaced by URL.

BTW, it hasn't occurred to me that people would associate
phone numbers and street addresses with web services.
How interesting.

Joe Hui
Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
============================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin, Daniel [mailto:Austin.D@ic.grainger.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: 'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)'; Joseph Hui; Hugo Haas;
> www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: URI's
> 
> 
> 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 18:02:32 GMT

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