Re: Using URIs as language instead of as protocol element

On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 10:55, Larry Masinter wrote:
> 
> I think the TAG has had difficulty in trying to
> apply some kind of theory of semantics to what was
> originally designed as computer network protocol
> element.
> 
> As a HTTP protocol element to a proxy server or
> in a HREF in a HTML document, "http://www.w3.org"
> is unambiguous enough, but taken as language,
> it can be used to denote a wide variety
> of items, depending on the context of use: the
> web server at www.w3.org, the actual page you retrieve
> when you do a HTTP GET on port 80 to the DNS name
> www.w3.org with a "GET / HTTP/1.1", or the organization
> of "The World Wide Web Consortium".
> 
> There's a transfer of meaning (cf.
> "Transfers of Meaning", Nunberg,
> http://www-csli.stanford.edu/%7Enunberg/JOS.html
> )
> 
> I don't think you can get far without acknowledging
> that using URIs as semantic identifiers carries more
> ambiguity than as a protocol elements.

I agree.

Meanwhile, I think there's a network-effect-style
benefit, if not an architectural princple,
about using URIs consistently in the linguistic
sense.

i.e. there are real benefits to everybody that
uses http://www.w3.org/ in a formal language
to use it to denote the home page
of the organization, and not for the organization,
and not for any particular sequence-of-bytes-document.

I started writing about this under
"Can the same URI be used to identify different resources?"
in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ures14
but I'm not satisifed that I've really made the point.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Friday, 30 August 2002 12:13:08 UTC