- From: Tim Kindberg <timothy@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 14:30:17 -0700
- 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