- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:27:47 -0700
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Larry Masinter wrote: > I don't think you can get far without acknowledging > that using URIs as semantic identifiers carries more > ambiguity than as a protocol elements. Well yes, but so what? Like Phil Karlton used to say, "There are only two hard things in CS: naming and cache invalidation". Naming things is hard, and naming them in a decentralized planetary-scale networked data system is really hard. Our experience over the last ten years is that operationally, naming things with HTTP-class URLs seems to work pretty well, and many people believe that the generalization from URL to URI adds value. Hmm... is the concrete suggestion that the webarch document contain some discussion of the fact that naming things via URI carries the possibility of ambiguity? As in your www.w3.org example. Or is the suggestion that the webarch principle "Absolute URI references are unambiguous: Each absolute URI reference unambiguously identifies one resource" is simply wrong? Speaking for myself, I'm much less comfortable with that principle than with the others in the webarch doc. -Tim
Received on Sunday, 1 September 2002 12:27:44 UTC