W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2007

[history] Re: name for a resource's URI

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:31:53 -0400
Message-Id: <25B0900D-05A8-485C-9D4D-8F53E126B377@w3.org>
Cc: "Hammond, Tony" <t.hammond@nature.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>

However, my giving in by dropping the term "Universal" for "Uniform"  
in the IETF arguments,
while perhaps pragmatic in allowing the URI spec to get through at  
all,  was in other ways
a big mistake.   The argument against "Universal" was something like  
"You can't have the
impertinence to say you are developing something universal, which  
will apply to anything".
In fact I should have retorted that actually (a) the whole point was  
that it *should* be something into
which *any* system's identifiers can be mapped  and (b) that was not  
impertinent as it passes the Test of Independent Invention
<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Evolution.html#TOII> as anyone else  
can map my universal system
into theirs, and one can gateway the two URI spaces.  But I didn't,  
and if I had, who knows, maybe the
web would have been pushed back on harder by the IETF

The universality of the URI  is a fundamental aspect of the web  

It remains that the benefit of the web is primarily the wide  
interoperability of this single namespace.


On 2007-08 -02, at 09:25, Garret Wilson wrote:

> Right. Thanks. It was a long day. ;)
> Garret
> Hammond, Tony wrote:
>>> as URI means "resource identifier" (and a universal one, at that), I
>> Nope. Not universal. URI is *not* a universal identifier. It's a  
>> "uniform"
>> identifier. Different kettle of fish.
>> Tony
Received on Friday, 3 August 2007 15:32:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:02 UTC