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 15:05:06 -0400
Message-Id: <200307091905.h69J56Wq028395@roke.hawke.org>
To: hardie@qualcomm.com
cc: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, uri@w3.org

> At 2:35 PM -0400 7/9/03, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> >  > > 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.
> >>
> >>  Absolutely correct! _You_ have told me that "Jim" and "James" are
> >>  synonymous. But RFC 2396 provides no method for making such statements.
> >
> >I can put aside the OWL terminology entirely.
> >
> >You seem to be saying that
> >     http://www.w3.org/
> >and
> >     http://WWW.w3.org/
> >could not possibly ever both identify the same resource.  You seem to
> >be saying that if two URIs are textually different, they cannot
> >possibly identify the same thing.
> 
> I don't think that's quite what he said.  He said that the knowledge that two
> identifiers were equivalent was outside the generic URI syntax, and based
> in the semantics of the scheme or the application using the scheme.

I wish he had said that, but he didn't.  I'm giving him every chance
to say that, but he's not taking it.

    -- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 15:05:45 UTC

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