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

Re: Should tags be URNs? (was Re: Proposal: 'tag' URIs)

From: Tim Kindberg <timothy@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 14:30:17 -0700
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.1.20010504140932.02befeb8@hplex1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@ebuilt.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Roy,

At 01:37 PM 5/4/2001 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > I would say that, like any 'name' or 'identifier', URIs aren't
> > intrinsically identifiers: they're intrinsically strings that are 
> unique in
> > some context; it's how they are used that make them identifiers.
>
>Of course -- that is the definition of "identifier".

It wasn't the one that was being used.


>The terms abstract and conceptual are every
>bit as formal as any mathematical definition you might invent,

That's not so, by the definition of 'formal'. I'm not aiming for pure 
formality. I'm after just enough so that I can put my point of view across 
without others wondering what I mean.

>and far more
>likely to serve the intended purpose.

Since we seem to be foundering in ambiguity, it does not suit my purpose: a 
widespread facility for resolving identifiers into web resources.


>What is a URI?  It is an identifier for all those things an author might
>wish to identify as the target of a relationship.

If you'd said "It is an identifier for all those resources authors might 
wish to assert as the targets of relationships with the identified entity" 
then I would agree with you. Those relationships are what I've written as 
the resolve-i functions.

Cheers,

Tim.


Tim Kindberg

internet & mobile systems lab  hewlett-packard laboratories
1501 page mill road, ms 1u-17
palo alto
ca 94304-1126
usa

www.champignon.net/TimKindberg/
timothy@hpl.hp.com
voice +1 650 857 5609
fax +1 650 857 2358
Received on Friday, 4 May 2001 17:30:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:02 UTC