Re: Naming things with hashes (not #, but e.g. md5)

On 4/11/12 11:03 AM, David Booth wrote:
> The TAG definitely does have other important issues to address, and the
> httpRange-14 issue requires a*lot*  of deep thought to work out.  So
> maybe the AWWSW task force should continue trying to make more progress
> before bothering the TAG further with it.  But the AWWSW task force has
> had a lot of difficulty because Jonathan and I -- the most active
> participants -- seem to hold fundamentally different views about what we
> should be trying to achieve.   Jonathan seems to hold the view that a
> URI has or should have a universally agreed "meaning", and its semantics
> should be determinable through the various W3C and IETF standards that
> the web uses.  This has gotten him all tangled up in trying to
> semantically align specifications (such as the HTTP spec) that were
> never intended as semantics specifications.  In contrast, I have been
> advocating the view that the "meaning" of a URI is irrelevant to the
> architecture: what matters from an engineering perspective is URI
> definitions and their usefulness to applications.

Aren't we looking for a clear *definition* of what a URI actually is ? 
And then following that, firming up on how a URI can be used to 
Identify/Name referents that happen to be realm agnostic  *things* or 
*entities* .


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen