Re: URIs quack like a duck

On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Michael Mealling wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 12:39:00PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> > Michael Mealling scripsit:
> > > I.e. there are only Documents. Everything is a Document. And a
> > > Document and a Resource are the same thing....
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > This is actually one of the clearer fundamental axioms of the web:
> > > Everything is a document. It was even one of three things on the
> > > slide at the newcomers orientation at the AC meeting...
> > 
> > Well, T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, and L. Masinter don't seem to agree
> > with you:
> > 
> > # Not all resources are network "retrievable"; e.g., human beings,
> > # corporations, and bound books in a library can also be considered resources.
> > 
> > So if everything is a Document, are you and I Documents too?
> > (When you prick us, do we not bleed?)
> 
> Yep. I'm actually in the midst of registering a URN namespace that is
> specifically for assigning names or individuals and organizations.
> And, until we develop matter transporters, you and I are decidedly
> not retrievable via the network. But I can assign myself a URI and
> thus allow the web to talk about me.
> 
> So where do I and Tim disagree here?

Imagine someone else creates another URI scheme, also used for naming
individuals and/or orgs. And that some Web data uses your scheme to talk
about me as urn:mm-agent-namespace:034543532423432 and some other data
uses person:uk:nx-930366b. 

We all(?) agree that there is just one flesh and blood person being named.

We all(?) agree that the URI spec allows us to use URIs to name persons,
and that here we see two such names associated with the same flesh and
blood person.

Some of us read the URI spec as saying that there are two capital-R Web
Resources being named here. (I think TimBL is in that camp.)

Some of us read the URI spec as saying that there is one Resource, and it
has two URI names associated with it on the Web. I used to think I was in
that camp. Now I'm agnostic w.r.t. trying to fathom the proper reading of
that document.

From an RDF perspective, this topic is proving a real implementation
headache. There's one of something (flesh and blood entity) and two of
something else (Web names for that entity, aka URI). There seems to be
utter confusion in the community as to whether we have one Resource (the
person), two Resources (one each for the two URIs), or even three.

--danbri

Received on Sunday, 4 June 2000 14:29:16 UTC