- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:03:53 -0500
- To: "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
The URI can identify. It cannot classify. That is where it falls short of being a word in the sense Fielding asserts. It is reliable unless overloaded. URNs on the other hand, should be able to classify given a coding agreement. len -----Original Message----- From: Tim Berners-Lee [mailto:timbl@w3.org] > The intent seems good, but how on earth do you build this confidence? > By relying on the human-language semantics of the opaque part of the > URI? Absolutely not. Joshua didn't mean that you knew what each URI meant by just looking at it -- he meant (I think/hope!) that you know from the architecture that the two occurrences of the URI will identify the same thing, whatever that is. There is no ambiguity built into the architecture itself. This is a core principle fo the Web which we seem to be in danger of forgetting.
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2002 09:04:35 UTC