- From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:48:22 +0100
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
At 09:49 AM 7/11/00 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > >Where is the concept of "type" of a resource defined? > >It's not. But I'd like to see distinctions made, whether in URIs or in the >specifications that use them, between 'retrievable' and 'non-retrievable' >URIs. I'm not sure that distinction makes any sense... > >I would like to see a formal specification of "resource". (I have my own > >working ideas, but am still not sure if they align with more widely held > >expectations). > >I don't think the definition from RFC 2396 has gained anything from its >repeated quoting. I would heartily support a revision that addressed more >aspects of URI usage and processing. ... but to clarify my intent: by "formal specification" I meant something more than the definition that appears in RFC 2396. I imagine something that is much more explicit about the properties of and relationships between resources, URIs, entities and any auxiliary concepts. Then, we might have something more recognizable to attach concepts like "language", "namespace", "schema", etc. >As expected by people who see 'http://' and expect it to have its familiar >meaning. As expected by people who want to compare A to B reliably. As >expected by people trying to write generic namespace and XLink processors. I can sympathize with that, but I'm not sure it's the right expectation upon which to build a web that attempts to go beyond mindless "monkey see, monkey do" document retrieval. #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Tuesday, 11 July 2000 13:17:42 UTC