- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:26:08 -0600
- To: "'ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk'" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
This one goes to the heart of a URI in the role of a value or name, not an identifierAsPointer. It does not 'identify' a resource by direction. It is a member of a value pair whose role is to uniquely name a scope and assign an alias to that name. It isn't an embarassment. I think it highlights the multiple roles played by URIs, (eg, URLs and URNs). The embarassment would be to indicate that these are not distinct roles when in fact and by clear example, they are. A URI without a resource is a structured string value. It may or may not be unique depending on the application or role of the value type. len From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk] Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> writes: > None, because it is not a URI and there's not a canonical way of > mapping it to a URI. So just to be sure we're on the same page, do you agree with DanC that this means that the way in which XML 1.0 plus Namespaces makes use of QNames is inconsistent with the principles of Web Architecture? If so, isn't that a bit of an embarrassment, at least?
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 09:26:12 UTC