- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:12:17 -0500
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>.... >> [[[ >> Over time, the importance of this additional level of >> hierarchy seemed to >> lessen; the view became that an individual scheme does not >> need to be cast >> into one of a discrete set of URI types such as "URL", "URN", >> "URC", etc. >> Web-identifer schemes are in general URI schemes; a given URI >> scheme may >> define subspaces. >> ]]] - http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/ > >My understanding of the W3C "clarification" is that the terms URN and URL >are >still valid -- they simply do not serve as formal classifications of URI >schemes. >They *do* however serve as useful, informal, classifications of URI schemes >by which we may ascribe some common behavior or characteristics and conduct >general discussions about types of URI. > >..... >It seems to me that distinctions such as URN, URL, URP, etc. are vital >not just as "useful informal concepts" but as formal classifications of >URI schemes defining discrete parititions which serve to instruct an >application what the dereferencing characteristics of the URI are. URLs are >a location. URNs are a name that must be mapped to one or more locations. >URPs are WYSIWIG and do not dereference at all. Etc. etc. > >I think the W3C might be shooting itself in the foot with its >"clarification". I tend to agree. I think that when the W3C started talking about URIs they went from file transfer protocols straight into the philosophical foundations of semiotics, without even realizing how high that cliff was they just stepped off. Pat Hayes -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 16:12:18 UTC