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

RE: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names

• To: 'Joe English' <jenglish@f...>, XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:10:28 -0600

SGML also cleanly stated that a PUBLIC ID did not 
have to be resolvable.  It is a useful name (really, 
a compound) but that a system ID does.  URI/URN/URL 
conflates these and while that can be useful as well, 
it isn't as clean or as clear.  It is a case where 
ease at one level makes confusion at the next.

The most practical use for the Semantic Web is 
to get a machines' opinion.  It's an intelligent 
tutoring system writ big.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@f...]

Although I still believe the URL vs. URN distinction is
a useful one, it seems that even if you publish a URI that's
intended to be used only as a Locator, somebody else is going
to come along later and use it as a Name.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the question of "how
to process a URI" might be as meaningless as the question of
"how to process an XML document".  SGML gained most of its utility
by divorcing processing expectations from the markup; perhaps
the URI philosophy will enable more of the same. 

• Prev by Date: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re:"Abstract"URIs
• Next by Date: Re: Namespace and URIs
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Next by thread: REST, SQL
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread