W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2001

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-masinter-dated-uri-00.txt

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:09:09 -0400
Message-Id: <200108261448.KAA7239723@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "Larry Masinter - LMM@acm.org" <lmnet@attglobal.net>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 10:25 AM 2001-08-26 , Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>> 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:-


No, you haven't got the point, yet.  At least not if I get the point.

'tdb' may be heuristically expanded "that described by" and it is not the
representation or recovered value of the resource that this indicates at all,
but the abstract notion of stuff that is acceptable when the cited resource is
applied as an acceptor or filter.  XHTML 1.1 is a name we bandy about.  It is
"the name of a language."  It is notions such as "a language" in this phrase
which are extension-indefinite and intension-definite for which the 'tdb' form
of URI directing us to "apply the utterance-of-record indicated by the
URI as restrictive description" is the most accurate form of citation.

This makes "tdb(XHTML 1.1 definitive URI)" a perfectly beautiful
'predicate' to
apply in EARL even if it is a funny sort of URI.  But EARL wants that sort of
funny URIs, doesn't it?


>> 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
>"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/>http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
>:Sean :hasHomepage <<http://purl.org/net/sbp/>http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Sunday, 26 August 2001 10:49:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:39 UTC