Re: Clarifying what a URL identifies (Four Uses of a URL)

Michael Mealling wrote,
> Its not a fallacy. Its merely insufficient when you are within some
> system's set of semantics that requires that function. URIs exist
> outside any set of semantics you may require for the time being.
> Since they do and the only information that exists across contexts is
> that a URI identifies a Resource and two URIs identify two Resources,
> etc then your statement and Tim's is still orthogonal. The
> httpRange-14 problem is not a problem with URIs, its a problem with
> the context that contains "the HTTP protocol, the 'http:' URI scheme,
> XML, HTML and web browsers". If you're not in that particular context
> then there isn't a problem. Thus the problem isn't with URIs but how
> they're being used in that context. Not everyone is using the same
> context....

I'm afraid I don't think works very well.

On the one hand you're saying that a URI identifies a Resource across 
contexts. On the other you're saying that a URI is always used in a 
given context, and that contexts can vary, so the effects of use might 
vary correspondingly.

That's not flat out inconsistent ... tho' it would be if we agree that 
meaning (ie. the referent) is determined by use ... but it certainly 
looks like a very unstable position.



Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 15:13:56 UTC