W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2003

Re: 2.3 URI Ambiguity

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:21:19 -0800
Message-Id: <F1861AA4-24EB-11D8-864F-000A95A51C9E@textuality.com>
Cc: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hp.com>, www-tag@w3.org, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>

On Dec 2, 2003, at 8:31 AM, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> What about something like this:
>   "In Web architecture, URIs identify resources. Outside of Web
>    architecture, the URI string can be useful in any number of
>    roles (e.g., as database keys), including as identifiers. For
>    instance, "mailto:nadia@example.com" can be used by the organizers
>    of a conference as an identifier for Nadia; parties involved in
>    the context understand and agree to that local policy. Certain
>    properties of URI strings in the Web architecture, such as their
>    potential for uniqueness, make them appealing for non-Web contexts.
>    In the Web architecture, "mailto:nadia@example.com" only
>    identifies an Internet mailbox. The URI is not ambiguous within
>    the Web architecture merely because the URI string serves different
>    roles in other contexts. URI ambiguity arises when an agent uses
>    the same URI to identify two different *Web* resources.
> Notice there is no use of the phrase "indirect identification".

I'd be happy with losing the phrase "indirect identification" which 
really feels like a red herring.  Ian's suggestion looks OK to me -Tim
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 12:21:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:02 UTC