- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:08:36 -0500
- To: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4CDC3124.1070501@openlinksw.com>
On 11/11/10 12:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > All, > Type fixes > As the conversation about HTTP responses evolves, I am inclined to > believe that most still believe that: > > 1. URL is equivalent to a URI > 2. URI is a fancier term for URI > 3. URI is equivalent to URL. 1. URL is equivalent to a URI 2. URI is a fancier term for URL 3. URI is equivalent to URL. > > I think my opinion on this matter is clear, but I am very interested > in the views of anyone that don't agree with the following: > > 1. URI is an abstraction for Identifiers that work at InterWeb scale > 2. A URI can serve as a Name > 3. A URI can serve as an Address > 4. A Name != Address > 5. We locate Data at Addresses > 6. Names can be used to provide indirection to Addresses i.e., Names > can Resolve to Data. 1. URI is an abstraction for Identifiers that works at InterWeb scale 2. A URI can serve as a Name 3. A URI can serve as an Address (URL) 4. An Address (URL) can *serve* as a Name 4. A Name != Address (URL) 5. We locate Data at Addresses (URLs) 6. Names can be used to provide indirection to Addresses (URLs) i.e., Names can Resolve to Data. > > Hopefully, if we sort this out, we have one less point of confusion to > address i.e. that overloaded term: Resource. > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 18:09:05 UTC