- From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:33:11 -0400
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
Hi Simon.... ;-) On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 07:24:51AM +0900, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > Well, at least it's good to see that URIs as currently defined produce a > similar empty and unsatisfying feeling in some quarters of the RDF > community as well as in some quarters of the XML community. > > I'll repeat my suggestion from earlier: either clarify RFC 2396 and give it > some meat - on the difficult questions like what a resource is, what an > identifier is, and how to compare resources and identifiers - or just call > it syntax for identifiers and leave it at that. > > I'm happy to see this latest draft as a guide to URIs, but I don't think it > rates status other than informational. Simon, I assume that for your applications you need some further constrained definition of what a Resource is. That's fine. But are you suggesting that your definitions be applied to other applications as well? -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | www.rwhois.net/michael Sr. Research Engineer | www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett | ICQ#: 14198821 Network Solutions | www.lp.org | michaelm@netsol.com
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 01:04:05 UTC