[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: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:17:04 -0800
• References: <E16al5H-0004sH-00@m...> <E16awvc-0002PK-00@c...> <001801c1b48a$61177ba0$0301a8c0@n...> <E16b19Y-00075R-00@s...>

Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> 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?

http://www.somesite.com/foo.gif/the_real_thing

If the owner of the site wants to give you access to the raw bits they
will construct a URI with that invariant. A hyperlink in the metadata
for the original object could direct you to that URI. It might make
sense to standardize the way of doing this reference, e.g. for WebDAV.

 Paul Prescod

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

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

• Prev by Date: Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
• Next by Date: Re: WSIO vs. Semantic Web
• 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