RE: Location vs. names

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Sampo Syreeni [mailto:decoy@iki.fi]
> Sent: 10 June, 2001 13:00
> To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN
> Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Location vs. names
> 
> 
> On 8 Jun 2001, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:
> 
> >A problem is that the distinction is absolutely not taken 
> for granted by W3C people.
> >Have a look at :
> >  http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/NameMyth.html
> 
> If I understand correctly, TimBL's argument hinges on the 
> problems we get
> from unstructured names and resolution. That is, he presents 
> the idea that
> names change when they embed information (like people's 
> names, metadata)
> that can change, and so the only sort of name that does not 
> need to change
> is something which is completely unstructured. That is quite 
> correct. Then
> he goes on to claim that without structure, names cannot be 
> dereferenced. I
> think this particular conclusion is a bit hasty.

One assertion I would make is that sometimes a location is a name
and sometimes a name is a location. Perspective, context and
pragmatics can impose a particular interpretation of any given
identifier as to its opacity.

Just because an identifier might in one case act as an opaque
name and in another case act as a location/address/path, does 
not mean that the distinction between name and location is
not important.
 
> ...
> I think that
> URLs and URNs are two different things, neither of which is becoming
> obsolete very soon. On the contrary, people should work to get URN
> resolution working.

Amen.

Patrick

--
Patrick Stickler                      Phone:  +358 3 356 0209
Senior Research Scientist             Mobile: +358 50 483 9453
Software Technology Laboratory        Fax:    +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center                 Video:  +358 3 356 0209 / 4227
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland   Email:  patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Sunday, 10 June 2001 15:50:35 UTC