- From: Daniel R. Tobias <dan@tobias.name>
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:09:25 -0400
- To: uri@w3.org
On 2 Oct 2003 at 7:44, John Cowan wrote: > A fine thing indeed. How would you formally characterize the > relationship of the above URI to Shakespeare? Easy... It's a URI that at one point led to a bunch of bytes that, when displayed in the appropriate image viewer, resembled some artist's conception of what Shakespeare looked like. At present, it leads to a 404 Not Found page that has no obvious connection with the Bard. It's not "the URI of Shakespeare", or even (any more) "a URI to an image of Shakespeare"; any connection that URI might have to the playwright is in the minds of those who may have used or linked to it, not anything inherent in the URI itself. If somebody were to get approval for a URI scheme designed specifically to create URIs for particular persons, playwrights, etc., then one might be able to say of a URI in that scheme that it is actually "the URI of Shakespeare", or more properly "a URI of Shakespeare" because of the possibility of there being more than one such thing... (maybe he's both "person:1564-04-23/England/Stratford-On-Avon/Shakespeare/William" and "playwright:british:16th-century:shakespeare"). -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 10:17:32 UTC