- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:22:11 +0000
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 12:52 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > All, > > 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. > > 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. Why would this be a matter of opinion? :) After all RFC3986 et al are Standards Track and have quite clear statements on what Identifier connotes in the context of URI. Such as: """ Identifier An identifier embodies the information required to distinguish what is being identified from all other things within its scope of identification. Our use of the terms "identify" and "identifying" refer to this purpose of distinguishing one resource from all other resources, regardless of how that purpose is accomplished (e.g., by name, address, or context). These terms should not be mistaken as an assumption that an identifier defines or embodies the identity of what is referenced, though that may be the case for some identifiers. Nor should it be assumed that a system using URIs will access the resource identified: in many cases, URIs are used to denote resources without any intention that they be accessed. """ Dave
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 09:22:47 UTC