Re: section 2.2 - what does it mean to 'take on meaning'

On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 15:18, Daniel Weitzner wrote:
> Section 2.2 on URI/Resource relationships proposes that URIs take on 
> ;'meaning' based on the HTTP spec.
> 
> > For example, the HTTP URI scheme (RFC2616) uses DNS so that names such 
> > as ´http://example.com/somepath#someFrag¡ take on meaning by way of 
> > HTTP GET response messages from the domain holder (or an agent they 
> > delegate to).
> 
> I would suggest that it is unclear what it means for a name such as the 
> one given in the example to have 'meaning.' There's inevitable 
> confusion about the distinction between the meaning of a URI and the 
> resources which is references. Personally, I don't believe that the URI 
> itself has any meaning at all separate from the resource which it 
> identifies.

Quite; the resource that it identifies is exactly its meaning. We
don't mean to say otherwise.

The example you quote is an attempt to explain what 'take on meaning'
er... means.

This text is the result of trying to explain this many times. It seems
to explain the concepts reasonably well to at least some part of the
Web community. We have tried other ways to explain it and they were
no better; sometimes much worse.

While we're open to other suggestions about how to word the explanation,
if you can't think of anything much better, I'd like to know if you
can accept it the way it is?


>  But this is a philosphical rathole that I think the 
> document should try to avoid. If the TAG has some reason to leave the 
> reference to 'meaning' in, I hope it can be clarified.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Danny
> 
> --
> Daniel J. Weitzner                                          
> +1.617.253.8036 (MIT)
> World Wide Web Consortium                       +1.202.364.4750 (DC)
> Technology & Society Domain Leader      <djweitzner@w3.org>
> http://www.w3.org/People/Weitzner.html
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Monday, 20 September 2004 20:47:25 UTC