Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck)

-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>; xml-uri@w3.org
<xml-uri@w3.org>
Date: Friday, June 02, 2000 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck)


>Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>
>> It happens that the relative URI-references have the property of
>> invariance under the opeartion of making a copy in a new space
>> of a set of resources which only have links between them.
>> And I agree that people use that a whole lot.  But that is a very
>> specific operation. And the resulting links are to new resources,
>> not to the old ones, so there was no identity preserved.
>
>Well, consider sharing (via links or symlinks or multiple servers)
>rather than copying  What then?


Copying, sharing, replicating, mirroring, symbolic linking, shortcutting,
duplicating, transclusing, mapping, mounting, or any any other technique
making a machine which will cause the rendition of resources in the second
set in an equivalent way to those in the second set. What's your point?

>> Our own recommendation. A lot of people worked on it and a lot of people
>> missed the creeping inconsistency.
>> Many people have propoes on this list and others deprocating relative
>> URIs for namespaces. If you do that then string comparison can be
>> done with or without absolutizing.  i can't see any other way out of this
>> mess.
>
>Deprecating is not enough for the Infoset, which has to have definite
>answers.


Well, OK, can we go for URIs from the point of view of the infoset?

Tim

Received on Saturday, 3 June 2000 00:02:40 UTC