- From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:58:52 -0400
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On Jun 10, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > The problem is that the ID in OpenID and the I in URI both stand for > Identity/Identifier, but in very different senses of the word: OpenID > is about *authentication*, URIs are about *naming*. Your overreact > because you take Tim to mean the first sense when he meant the second. > Tim does not object to your use of your homepage to authenticate > yourself. He cautions us that we cannot use its URI to name you. But what is the more general principle here? The document that Tim pointed to on "generic resources" gives the example of the Bible, and different versions of it: from generic to specific (something like FRBR distinctions among work/expresion/manifestation). It then says: "Each resource may have a URI. The authority which allocates the URI is the authority which determines wo what it refers: Therefore, that authority determines to what extent that resource is generic or specific." I'm probably missing something, but it seems to me that this contradicts the notion that one cannot use a URI to refer to something which is not in fact the resolved document (the homepage in this case). "The Bible" seems entirely analogous to "M. David" the person in this case. To be really practical, what does this URI refer to? <http://worldcat.org/oclc/953128> Is it the page which represents this particular version of Moby Dick, or might it in fact name the book itself, with the web page merely being a representation of it? Whatever the answer, why? Bruce
Received on Sunday, 10 June 2007 19:58:58 UTC