- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 09:13:52 -0400
- To: "r.j.koppes" <rikkert@rikkertkoppes.com>
- Cc: Yuzhong Qu <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org, swick@w3.org, phayes@ihmc.us
On 2007-06 -09, at 06:39, r.j.koppes wrote: > The thing that still puzzles me is the following: a URI is unique > in the > thing it represents, indeed, it is a resource identifier. a URL is > only > unique in the location and can mean very different things No no no no no. The term "URL" is NOT patt of the architecture. It has no well- defined meaning. (It has been used to mean "URIs which use FTP or HTTP schemes as opposed to URN schemes" or "URIs which might break" or URIs of documents") It would be simplest if you stop using it and only use the term URI. The use of a string as a 'URL' is not different from its use as a URI. > for example the URL http://www.example.com can be a html or xhtml > document, depending on the client accessing it. Yes. Please see http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Generic.html for a full discussion of generic URIs. > Furthermore, the string > (this might be crucial) http://www.example.com might act as openId url > for someone. No. It cannot identify both a document and a person. Tim Berners-Lee
Received on Saturday, 9 June 2007 13:13:59 UTC