> I wrote this up for discussion purposes, as a response > to some of the discussion about URNs, URIs, and the > difference between abstractions and resources that > describe them. [...] I'm confused as to the distinction between "duri" and "tdb". One identifies the representation of the resource, and the other represents the resource, fine, but I think you've confused the issue terribly by some of the examples in your draft:- > For example, > > urn:tdb:2001:data:,The%2520US%2520president > > names the concept described by the (text/plain) string > "The US president" at the very first instant of 2001. The resource referred to by the URI data:,The%2520US%2520president at any moment in time is simply the string "The US president". You're confusing the lexical value of a definition of a resource with the resource itself. The concept *of* "The US president" is not *ever* identified by that URI. Hence, the "data:" URI scheme is "persistent" because its own particular context doesn't change, and therefore using a "tdb" on it is pretty pointless. "tdb" is neat for preserving context. The context of a URI that actually does identify the current U.S. president (which could be a URN, as URI and URN are basically interchangable [1]) is something that does change over time, and that a "tdb" would be neat for preserving. So I think that the scheme is valid, but that the particular example above is misleading and simply incorrect. [1] I will claim that until someone can provide me with a quantitative defintion of how URNs are "more persistent" than any particular URI scheme. The persistence of a URI is given by the context of its use, and that's not something which can be accurately modelled. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .Received on Sunday, 26 August 2001 10:25:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:39 UTC