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

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

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:14:06 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B0263018F@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <michael@neonym.net>
Cc: <sandro@w3.org>, <hardie@qualcomm.com>, <uri@w3.org>

> Its all about _layers_ Patrick. 

No shit. Don't patronize me.

You explicitly stated that two lexically distinct URIs denote
*different* resources. 

That's simply wrong. And means that the lower layer is
constraining higher layers against co-denotation.

It is true that RFC 2396 is unnable to say anything about equivalence
of denotation. Fine. But it should also clearly reflect that
there is no restriction against co-denotation of URIs.

> ...
> > But you seem to be asserting that co-denotation is prohibited,
> > not simply possible. There is nothing left for OWL or other
> > layers to contribute, without coming into direct conflict with
> > what you appear to be asserting, that lexically distinct URIs
> > always denote distinct resources.
> Its prohibited _at that layer_ by the simple fact that you have no
> language in which to express any of those concepts. 

Sorry. No. Just because you don't have the language to express
something does not mean it is either impossible or prohibited.

It simply means you can't tell.

It's about granularity. RFC 2396 does not provide sufficient
granularity of specification to clarify co-denotation of 
resources. But that doesn't mean it is prohibited.

That's like saying that atomic structures are prohibited because
at the "layer" of my eyes, I can't see them.

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 11:14:09 UTC

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