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

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

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:32:38 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
Cc: uri@w3.org

At 12:20 09/07/03 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote:
>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.

Er, maybe I'm being rather forgetful here, but I don't recall that RFC2396 
defines any notion of equality on resources.   I just checked all 
occurrences of "equal" and none seemed to relate to equality of 
resources.  Ditto "same".  Can you please point to the definition of 
equality that you are using?


Graham Klyne
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 12:35:15 UTC

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