Re: URI/URI ref distinction (was on "How to Compare Uniform Resource Identifiers")

At 09:41 AM 1/15/03 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> (Graham Klyne) writes:
> >I found TimBL's posting to be very illuminating:
> >
> >
> >
> >I think there's an important identifier/reference distinction to be
> >maintained here.
>I think TimBL has made a fundamental mistake.
>In that post, he appears not to recognize the representation-bound
>nature of fragment identifiers and thereby permits himself to conflate
>resource identifiers with identifiers tangled in representation issues.
>Calling them both URIs is perfectly fine, if the "R" can stand
>alternately for "resource" and "representation" - because the nature of
>the identification process itself changes as soon as a fragment
>identifier is used.
>If this is illumination, it is very dark in here.

Hmmm... I think I see your point.

I think the distinction made between "identifier" and "reference" is still 

But the conflation of "resource" with "view"/"fragment", when the latter is 
representation dependent, is harder to explain consistently.


Graham Klyne

Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 11:34:01 UTC