- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:57:58 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- 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 Not in the context of machine states and programming languages, no. In a general-purpose ontological model for all of human knowledge, it does require a little more thought. Since (I have been told) a resource can be anything, I am not sure what kind of general notions of 'state' or 'corresponds' can be used in such a very general setting. > > 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... I meant in general. This passage is about resources in general, not just http. Thanks for the feedback. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 13:57:57 UTC