- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 10:04:47 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
+1. It is the "angels on a pin" debate. Infinities of infinities are big enough to support any answer. To me, the problem of URIs is that the property they assert, "identity" only emerges out of the properties of name and location; otherwise, they remain strings and not much more. The point you make about transfer of meaning is well taken. Presupposing a URI (all resources have URIs) is an indelicate way of saying "for a resource to become a member of the linguistic community, a URI must be assigned" and that is about all one has to say. A URI is assigned and maintained. Full stop. Cantor rants are fun but precisely what is one trying to prove/clarify with that? len From: Larry Masinter [mailto:LMM@acm.org] So insofar as W3C documents disagree with IETF documents about what a 'URI' is, we should certainly work at resolving the difference. I'm not sure it's necessary to actually decide how many resources there are before agreeing on what it is a Uniform Resource Identifier identifies, at least in the context that it's used as a protocol element or a semantic identifier/designator.
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 11:05:22 UTC