W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2003

RE: resources, stuffs and individuation

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:05:43 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C108CE7A60@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Michael Mealling" <michael@neonym.net>
Cc: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <uri@w3c.org>

> something manageable. What I'm after is one term that applies to
> that a URI is bound to (what I call a Resource with the capital R
> intentional) and another, wholly seperate term for things that might
> exist but which don't have a URI bound to them.

OK, that is reasonable.  Aren't you just saying that at any particular
point in time, some resources will have one or more URIs bound to them,
and others will not have any URIs bound?  You want a way to distinguish
between those two classes of resources.  That is very practical demand
and no point arguing about it.

> It is very intentional on my part to design things such that, if it
> doesn't have a URI, then it simply does not exist.

You can easily make the case that "resources that do not have a URI are
completely invisible and unusable to me until they are assigned a URI".

But that is not exactly the same as saying "resources which do not have
a URI do not exist in reality".  The former statement seems completely
adequate, and the latter seems to be unnecessarily provocative and is
just begging for a fruitless argument.  Why the heck would anyone care?
What is wrong with the former?
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 14:05:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:42 UTC