Re: namespace usage as assertions

 
Larry Masinter wrote:
> ...  We're not very troubled with the distinction
> between 'is there a name for it?' and 'does it exist?'.
>
> I'm not sure why we're having trouble with similar distinctions between
> a URI and the resource that might be identified by it. Words and phrases
> are coined to name the previously unnamable, just as we invent URIs and
> URI schemes.

Because there is no way to compare abstract resources for equality: we
can only test names (strings) currently.  If we say that a namespace is
a resource and not a name, we lose the ability to have the negative test
"are these two resources different?": only the positive test is
available (i.e. we can tell if two resources are the same because they
have the same URI).  

In practise, this means that even if we agreed that a namespace is a
resource with many possible URIs for the same resource, it will resolve
nothing, because people only have the more immediate test (of strings,
normalized or unnormalized) available. 

Rick Jelliffe

Received on Thursday, 29 June 2000 09:50:44 UTC