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

Re: Proposal: new top level domain '.urn' alleviates all need for urn: URIs

From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
Date: 09 Jul 2003 12:20:33 -0400
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, hardie@qualcomm.com, uri@w3.org
Message-Id: <1057767633.27314.60.camel@blackdell.neonym.net>

On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 12:14, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > If you have two URIs then you, by
> > definition, have two distinctly different Resources.
> 
> Speaking of things one cannot let go by unnoticed....
> 
> Quick test case.   You're saying that by inspection it is true that:
> 
>      <a> owl:differentFrom <b>.
> 
> and also that:
> 
>      <http://www.w3.org> owl:differentFrom <http://WWW.w3.org>.

I don't know. You're using a definition of equality drawn from OWL and
not from RFC 2396. I don't use OWL and thus never intended for its
definition of 'equality' to be used in any comments I made. When I talk
about URIs _universally_ I make it a point to use only terms that are
universal for all possible applications, past, present and future. That
means the only definition of equality that's available to me is the one
found in RFC 2396. You're talking about OWL's concept of equality which
is a perfectly fine thing to do. OWL probably has a completely different
definition of what a 'resource' (note no capitalization) might be.
Again, I don't use OWL so its definitions are not in my lexicon.

> That is, if two URIs are textually different, then their identified
> resources cannot possibly ever be the same thing.

Where are you drawing your definitions of 'resource' and 'same'?

> I don't think that's what you mean to be saying.   If it is, I think
> you're in a small minority in this community.

I probably am in a small community since I'm attempting to make sure
that people are speaking only about their own particular applications
and not the universality of all systems and objects that could ever be
identified by a URI. Most here seem to be speaking as thought their
system of choice is _the_ system that everyone else uses.

> Perhaps you meant to say: "There is nothing in the HTTP and HTTPS
> specifications which mandate that the resources identified when you
> change from one scheme to the other (keeping the rest of the URI the
> same) are the same thing.  Since that's not in the spec, why are you
> claiming it's true?"


Again, where are are you getting your definitions of 'same' and
'resource' from?

-MM
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 12:21:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:06 UTC