a theory of meaning for URIs

I prefer the theory that URIs mean exactly what their
registered definition (as listed in the URI
scheme registry) says they mean. In this theory:

* URIs with unregistered schemes have no meaning.
* URIs with schemes whose definition is unclear have
  unclear meaning.

In this theory, the meaning of a 'mailto' URI is
defined -- as good as it gets -- in RFC 2368.

No additional meaning need apply, no further
interpretation, projection, or findings.
Similarly, the meaning of a 'http' URI is defined
completely in RFC 2616. 

In this theory, the meaning of a URI does not depend
on the URIs having an 'owner'. Requiring an 'owner'
adds a great deal of theoretical complexity, especially
when you also add the concept of 'say' -- that the
'owner' of the URI has to 'say' what it means,
and that before the 'owner' 'says' the URI meaning,
the URI (presumably) doesn't mean anything.
In this  theory, there doesn't have to be an owner,
and no one has to say anything. 

In this theory, any other meaning or interpretation
comes from the context. If some representation
system wants to add some additional meaning to
the URI, that additional meaning comes from the
representation system, and not the URI itself.

However, I would prefer updating the definition of
the 'urn' scheme to make it clear that, for a URI
that starts with "urn:", that the next thing in the
URN syntax is a token identifying a 'namespace
authority'. In this particular URI scheme, the
'namespace authority' does 'say'. The act of
registering a URN in the namespace authority's
registry is the act of 'say'ing what the URN means.
So "urn:" is an exception -- because the definition
of the scheme makes it clear who the 'owner'
is and what it is they have to 'say'.

What do you think of this theory?

Larry

Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 12:46:18 UTC