[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs

• To: ext Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>, XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@n...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:56:59 +0200
• In-reply-to: <E16b19Y-00075R-00@s...>
• User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309

> On Wednesday 13 February 2002 07:31 am, Jonathan Borden wrote:

>> What is returned by a GET is simply a description of the actual
>> resource (other wording is a 'representation of the resource').

But is not the representation of a resource a resource? How
do we then refer to both "the Eiffel Tower" and a "description
of the Eiffel Tower" if they have the same URI.

If a URI can name everything, then every thing should have
its own URI, if it is thus named.

The resource has a URI. Each representation of the resource
is also a resource and has a different URI, etc.

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@n...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Streaming Transformations for XML
• Next by Date: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• Next by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread