Re: Possible new issue: Things with and without identity?

Stefan Eissing wrote,
> "Having identity" means than that there is a mapping between
> U and R. Such a mapping can be established in several defined
> ways and, as of the uniformity, in endless, future, not-yet
> defined ways.
> For the subset of URIs "below", my
> web server is the authority over the mapping between those
> URIs and the set of resources on my server (which might no all
> have a URI as it might refuse to offer any
> file:// mappings or might not even have a file system).
> (If I take my server down, the mapping with URI is lost, although
> the resources still exist and probably have names given to them
> by the operating system.)
> So, if we restrict RFC 2396 to only talk about the mapping of
> URI to resource and defining that "having identity" in RFC 2396
> means that such a mapping exists (established by whomever),
> do we then get rid of the metaphysical issues?

I think this is a perfectly workable definition, but it's a pretty, err, 
"creative" reinterpretation of "that has identity". If it's what RFC 
2396 really means then it should say so explicitly.



Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 05:34:46 UTC