- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:22:53 -0400
- To: michaelm@netsol.com
- Cc: michaelm@netsol.com, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Tim Kindberg <timothy@hpl.hp.com>, uri@w3.org
At 05:15 PM 5/7/01 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote: >On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:13:48PM -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > > At 04:20 PM 5/7/01 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote: > > >Nope. URNs have the requirement that once you assign a URN to its > > >Resource you can never reassign that URN to some other Resource. > > >Sure, you could assign a URN to whatever the http protocol gave you > > >on port 80 at cnn.com and that would be a useful thing because then > > >I could rely on the fact that, no matter what CNN did to cnn.com or > > >whether or not CNN even existed anymore, whenever I used that > > >URN I knew that someone hadn't changed the meaning out from under me. > > > > So does this mean that changing the Resource is effectively creating a new > > Resource? > >Nope. URIs and URNs never define any concepts or operations that have >to do with the Resource other than the act of binding a URI/URN to one (which >is how a Resource comes into existence). The statement "changing >the Resource" has no meaning outside of some specific application that defines >what "change" means for that application space. Low level caching might >consider 'change' to be moving it from one IP address to another while >DAV might define it as a versioning event that doesn't care what IP >address it is currently at. I guess my concerns center on: >someone hadn't changed the meaning out from under me. I'm concerned about: a) how you find that meaning b) what "meaning" means in a resource context c) how changing a resource avoids changing said meaning Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly & Associates XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. XHTML: Migrating Toward XML http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 17:24:22 UTC