[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: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:55:59 -0500
• In-reply-to: <001801c1b48a$61177ba0$0301a8c0@n...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <E16al5H-0004sH-00@m...> <E16awvc-0002PK-00@c...> <001801c1b48a$61177ba0$0301a8c0@n...>

On Wednesday 13 February 2002 07:31 am, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> URIs are names. The point being made is that what they name is NOT
> the literal series of characters returned by a GET, rather the URI
> names a _resource_ which might be anything thing that has a name.
> What is returned by a GET is simply a description of the actual
> resource (other wording is a 'representation of the resource').

Which is perfectly fine... the question though is how do I refer to a 
*specific* digtal resource reliably, such that I can always retrieve a 
represenation that it is a copy of the original resource? Using a URI, 
how can I reliably point to foo.gif?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@n...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: Why REST? (RE: WSIO- With Name)
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: Alaric Snell <alaric@a...>
  • URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Streaming Transformations for XML
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Why REST? (RE: WSIO- With Name)
• 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