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

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

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:02:28 -0400
Message-Id: <200307091702.h69H2SdY026829@roke.hawke.org>
To: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
cc: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, hardie@qualcomm.com, uri@w3.org

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

I'm using "resource" in the sense of RFC 2396 bis, which I believe to
be the same sense as used by RFC 2396, RDF, and OWL.  In philosophical
or mathematical logic, I think one might use the term "object in the
domain of discourse", or just "object" or "entity".

I'm using the word "same" in the normal dictionary sense of being
truly and completely indistinguishable.  If I tell you <Jim>
owl:sameAs <James>, then you know I'm using the terms "<Jim>" and
"<James>" as synonyms, as two names for the same thing.

> 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.

Isn't that what URI theory is about, generalization about URIs?  If
we're not trying to be general, what's the point of using URIs?

> > 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?

Clarified now?

     - sandro
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 13:03:07 UTC

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