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 13:00:01 -0400
To: "Weibel,Stu" <weibel@oclc.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-Id: <1057770001.18998.65.camel@blackdell.neonym.net>

On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 12:31, Weibel,Stu wrote:
> [thinking to myself... oh boy, why am I doing this...???]

Hi Stu! I asked myself the same thing.....

> My friend Michael Mealling [mailto:michael@neonym.net] asserts:
> > If you have two URIs then you, by definition, have two distinctly
> different Resources.  
> The following three URIs are well formed and distinct, but resolve to
> precisely the same resource:
> http://purl.org/dc
> http://purl.oclc.org/dc
> http://dublincore.org
> It can be argued that the first and second actually point to a resolution
> table, which in turn supports redirection of the link to the actual resource
> (the third), though this seems to me a distinction without a difference, and
> unhelpful.
> The distinction between the first and the second resides at the DNS level
> (two domains pointed at the same machine... not all that uncommon).  Clearly
> these two are different URLs that resolve to the same resource.

The definition of 'same' that you are using is perfectly reasonable to
you but might be completely unreasonable to someone else. I personally
don't agree with it since I have no real garuantee that oclc.org will
remain under OCLC's control since domain-names are re-assignable. We
spent a large amount of time way back when realizing that 'sameness'
with respect to URIs has many 'flavors', only one being universal for
all cases in which a URI can be used. 

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 13:01:22 UTC

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