Re: a theory of meaning for URIs

On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 11:39, Larry Masinter wrote:
> 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.

Hmm... that seems a little like sticking our head
in the sand, but maybe it's OK...

> * 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.

Well, that makes this theory pretty uninteresting;
the question we've been asked to discuss is how
representation systems, particularly RDF, contribute
to the meaning of URIs.

> 
> 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'.

I don't see any motivation for treating the
bit after urn: as different from the bit
after http:// , nor for treating that differently
from the xyz bit in http://example/xyz/
and so on.


>  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
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 13:00:35 UTC