- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:25:42 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: uri@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: [...] > This seems to imply a three-way distinction with two mappings, rather > than the simple two-way name/entity distinction suggested by the term > 'resource identifier'. A URI identifies (denotes?) a resource, which > in turn has some *content* (the entities to which it currently > corresponds): > > URI ----(identifies)---->resource-----(corresponds to)----->entity > > Apparently the identification mapping is fixed, but the correspondence > mapping can change with time. Is this a fair understanding of this > text? Yes. > If so, the entire notion of a URI simply denoting or naming > something seems to need re-thinking. Why? The three way relationship is hardly new or novel: object identifiers / objects / object state scheme variable identifiers / variables / values > I request clarification of what this is supposed to mean, with > particular reference to the intended distinction between 'resource' > and 'entity', and between 'identifies' and 'corresponds to'. In the HTTP spec 'entity' is used specifically to denote a sequence of bytes (with a bit of metadata, like its MIME type). Think of 'value' if you like. For a longer explanation, see the first part of... http://www.w3.org/Architecture/state Unfortunately, the latter parts sorta ramble on... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 13:25:43 UTC