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 13:04:26 -0400
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-Id: <1057770266.18993.71.camel@blackdell.neonym.net>

On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 12:32, Graham Klyne wrote:
> 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?

The one implicit in the identity function: I.e. a URI is equal to

I agree that is a very simple and limited form of equality but its the
only one that's universal. Its so simple you could also get away with
saying that there is no such thing as equality for URIs or

I'm comfortable with either one since they're essentially the same
property depending on whether your consider the identity function to
also be an equality function.


Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 13:05:47 UTC

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