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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:20:17 +0200
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEOLHMAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>

> From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 11:04 AM
> To: hardie@qualcomm.com; uri@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal: new top level domain '.urn' alleviates all need
> for urn: URIs
>
> ...
>
> > At 9:52 AM +0300 7/8/03, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >As for https: URIs, well https: is an oddball URI scheme that
> > >has inherent in it (IMO) an equivalence assertion. I.e. for
> > >any two URIs
> > >
> > >    http://X
> > >and
> > >    https://X
> > >
> > >the following can be presumed
> > >
> > >    <http://X> owl:sameAs <https://X>
> >
> > No, it really cannot.  I know of several cases where they
> > point to different resources, and many cases where one points
> > to a resource and the other does not.
>
> Perhaps actually different representations, rather than
> different resources.

Come on. It's perfectly legal to have port 80 and port 443 served by
completely separate processes that do not have anything in common. Is this a
good idea? Probably not. But does it happen? Yes. So do both URIs identify
the same resource? Only sometimes.

> ...

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 16:21:10 UTC

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