W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > September 2000

Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-daigle-uri-std-00.txt

From: John Aldridge <john.aldridge@informatix.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 14:51:39 +0100
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000907143313.02d15b80@mailhost>
To: michaelm@netsol.com, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
At 08:31 07/09/00 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 08:10:37AM -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> > >  I assume that for your applications you need some further constrained
> > >definition of what a Resource is. That's fine. But are you suggesting
> > >that your definitions be applied to other applications as well?
> >
> > I'm suggesting that the URI community stop hiding behind 'a resource is
> > anything you can identify' and start talking about what resources are.
>
>Why? A lot of us in other application arenas are perfectly happy with that
>definition and would prefer to keep it that way. Anything more constraining
>starts to put unnecessary controls on what someone can do with a URI
>and thats something we very explicitly _don't_ want to do.

I'm not sure which of you I'm agreeing with here...

I'm quite happy with resources being a flexible, extensible concept.  I'm 
also happy with the name of a resource being a URI.  I understand, and I'm 
comfortable with the fact that the entity body associated with the resource 
may change from time to time; and that two distinct resources may, in fact, 
have the same associated entity body.

What I'm not happy with is that there is no widespread agreement on how I 
tell whether two URIs name the same resource or not.

--
Cheers,
John
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 09:52:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 12 April 2005 12:17:25 GMT