- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 09:56:22 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:31:47AM -0700, Larry Masinter wrote: > NEW > Resource > This document doesn't limit the scope of what might be a > 'resource'; rather, the term 'resource' is used for whatever it > is that a Uniform Resource Identifier identifies Works for me. > each URI scheme > defines the range of things that are identified by > URIs using that scheme. That's the only part I can't live with; I believe that any constraint on what a particular URI identifies is a result of interactions with the URI only. And while, in practice, that's often related to the scheme, it's not mandated that it be so. But it seems to me that removing that part wouldn't change your message substantially. Any objections? > Commonly, URIs are used to identify > Internet accessible objects or services; for example, an electronic > document, an image, a service (e.g., "today's weather report for > Los Angeles"), a collection of other resources. However, > a resource need not be accessible via the Internet; URIs might > be used to identify human beings, corporations, bound books in a > library, and even abstract concepts. Ok. Here's a little friendly amendment; "Commonly, URIs are used to identify Internet accessible objects or services; for example, an electronic document, an image, a service providing today's weather report for Los Angeles, a collection ..." It flattens the nested example (i.e. "e.g." within the "for example"), and also makes it clearer, IMO, that the example is the service, not the abstract concept of today's weather report for L.A. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 09:56:45 UTC