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: <5.1.0.14.2.20030709172907.02555d60@127.0.0.1>
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?

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
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