RE: Pat's proposed text (WAS: Resources and URIs)

Sorry, I should read my entire backlog before sending any mail.

> pat hayes wrote,
> > [ PS. Here is my suggestion for an alternative introductory text. It
> > probably needs wordsmithing.
> >
> > "This document specifies the syntax of URIs, which are a form of
> > global identifier used in Web protocols and languages.  Particular
> > uses of URIs, and their intended meanings in various contexts, are
> > described in other specifications. In general, the entities referred
> > to or identified by URIs when used in Web contexts are called
> > "resources"., but this document does not specify the nature of
> > resources or to restrict resources to any particular category of
> > entities."
> >
> > and leave it at that.  Nothing else at all about resources, no
> > examples, no discussion.

I like this a lot. I still would allow particular URI schemes to
define the semantics for URIs of that scheme.

I imagine some people will be uncomfortable trying to cram
abstract concepts into http URIs without using 'urn:tdb', but
I 
> > This follows a dictum: when something is highly controversial, don't
> > try to get it right, just don't say it. And it tacitly admits what
is
> > the actual case, which is that its up to the world in general to
> > decide what URIs are *actually* going to mean.. So the least said,
> > the better.]

It's often better to be explicit about what you're not saying,
and to even acknowledge the source of the controversy.

Larry

Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 17:04:07 UTC