W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

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

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 09:34:20 -0400 (EDT)
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
cc: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>, michaelm@netsol.com, abrahams@acm.org, xml-uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0005310912260.1786-100000@tux.w3.org>


On Tue, 30 May 2000, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
[...]
> (1) My definition of a resource is that exactly identified by a URI and so
> URIs and resources are in 1:1 mapping. 
[...]

Tim,

Can you motivate our interest in your definition of 'resource'? For
example, do you believe it to be the same as that used in RFC-2396[1] or
the RDF data model?[2], a clarification of either or both of these, or a
proposal for a more useful concept to use instead? Should we think of the
1:1 view as an alternative to these specs or an interpretation of them?

RFC-2396 says:
	In many cases, different URI strings may actually identify the
  	identical resource.

This seems contrary to what you're saying in your version of resource,
ie. many:1 not 1:1 mapping from URI to 'resource'.


RDF M&S seems to defer to this:
	All things being described by RDF expressions are called resources.
	[...] Resources are always named by URIs plus optional anchor ids (see
	[URI]). Anything can have a URI; the extensibility of URIs	
	allows the introduction of identifiers for any entity imaginable.

thanks,

Dan


[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2000 09:34:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:43 UTC