Re: Are EPRs identifiers?


On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:01:30AM -0500, Francisco Curbera wrote:
> So I think by now everyone agrees on this: when the address or reference
> props. are different then:
> - the metadata may or may not be different,
> - they EPRs may or may not "point to/reference" different
> entities/endpoints/resources/thingies/whatever.
> That is, out of a negative byte by byte comparison you cannot infer
> anything at all (so you may be better off retrieving fresh copy of the
> metadata, for example.) I think we should at least make this crystal clear
> in the spec, since it has taken a bunch of smart guys like us a while to
> figure it out.


> If after this realization the group still wants to call EPRs identifiers
> then need to understand we will be endorsing a very ad-hoc notion of
> "identifier". This would be a gross mistake IMO: attaching new meaning to
> concepts already in use, can only result in confusion - of the general
> public as well much as the TAG itself.

Whoa, really?  How does the above justify such a conclusion?  I can't
see it.  If you're assuming that identifiers don't demonstrate those
characteristics you describe, I think you're mistaken, as the evidence
shows otherwise.  Phone numbers - nope, as a business or household can
have multiple numbers, even multiple numbers in different area codes.
URIs; nope, clearly.  CORBA IORs, nope (I still remember those
discussions circa 1994).  I don't doubt that examples exist, but I think
they're few and far between, and it seems to me that the larger the
system, the less chance there is of being able to enforce such a rigid

FWIW, I think EPRs with RefParams are *not* identifiers, but those
without them are.

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

Received on Thursday, 9 December 2004 21:28:53 UTC