- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:06:14 -0500
- To: "'Miles Sabin'" <miles@milessabin.com>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
There is nothing wrong with an ambiguous identifier unless one doesn't realize that it isn't a symbol or a sign; it is an index. Fielding's clock and even the weather, are good examples of an indexed resources. URIs, URNs, and URLs are really URSs. Until one knows the operation to be performed, one can't conclude which and as long as they are persistent, doesn't need to. So they are ambiguous up to the point of practice. len -----Original Message----- From: Miles Sabin [mailto:miles@milessabin.com] Joshua Allen wrote, > C. Some people claim that identity is inherently ambiguous, and > therefore URIs are meaningless to begin with. Since a URI doesn't > *really* identify anything, it doesn't matter what scheme you use. > This is the perversion of "minimally constraining". That's not quite right if that's meant to be a characterization of my position. All I claim is that some ident*ifiers* are in practice used ambiguously.
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 15:06:52 UTC