- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 13:03:49 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: public-uri-cg@w3.org
>At 18:38 04/04/2003 -0600, pat hayes wrote: > >>>On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 15:06, pat hayes wrote: >>>[...] >>>> But this IS a VERY big deal, and we should raise hell about it, and >>>> not stop raising hell until this idea is abandoned. >>> >>>Er... well... if you have a suggestion as to what the spec >>>should say, please suggest it (to uri@w3.org) and see what >>>the editor says. >>> >>>If you don't get satisfaction, then perhaps raising hell >>>is in order. But try the straight path first, OK? >> >>Ahem. Duly noted, tie straight, breathing normally. >> >>Will compose thoughtful and moderately worded English response when >>the Irish subsides. > >Though, as Pat's earlier response [1] shows, the argument is not >with any current URI wording, but with some proposed new wording >that isn't yet on the table. Even Roy's new working draft [2] >retains the old wording. > >When I "dismissed" this as a philosophical matter of little import, >I had overlooked that several specifications, and (apparently) the >official position, implicitly look to the URI specification for a >definition of "resource". If that definition could be removed to >some more neutral territory (e.g. the emerging web architecture >document), then maybe that frees the URI spec to focus itself on >syntactical aspects of URIs, and those resources that actually have >assigned URIs? That would make a lot of sense, yes. ><aside> >I think there has long been a tension that URIs serve (at least two) >different masters: in the web architecture (wherein the concept >originated), as a framework for universal identification, but within >the IETF (who "own" the specification) I sense a broad view that >URIs are some kind of glorified address. That sounds like a URL to me. BUt I agree, there seem to be divergent ideas about what we are talking about, and different masters to serve. Even for glorified addresses, seems to me that one doesn't want to say that nothing exists other than what is addressed. But I will stop moaning and draft a civilized message to the editor, as Dan suggests. Pat > For many purposes, these are reconcilable views, but when issues >like this come up one sees the fault lines emerge. ></aside> > >#g >-- > >[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0117.html > >[2] >http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html#rfc.section.1.1 > > >------------------- >Graham Klyne ><GK@NineByNine.org> >PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Monday, 7 April 2003 14:03:54 UTC