|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: URIs harmful
If I want a representation of a beach, please send the photos with the girls, not RDF or text prose. The problem is this: for too many people for too long, http://whatever means "address of something I can get" and not "name which has the meaning I want to give it". http means "dereference" first, not secondarily. It has a "preferred reading" and what is being added by claiming it for "names as preferred" flies in the face of common usage. It is always dereferenceable first, and then it is a name. You are stuck with that fact. By design. Spilt milk. People who want to use things which are clearly just names should be using urn:whatever. The battle to make http prefaced strings mean whatever one wants them to mean was lost a long time ago. I am well familiar with the "names don't have meaning, only people do" approach to semiotics and linguistics. sign -> signifier, signifieds, referents Stand up in a crowded room and yell "FIRE!" then when you have made bail, we can all meet at the local pub and you can tell us what you really meant. But it has to be local since you will be under restraints of a judge and a bail bondsman. Fielding is right that it has become like a word, and now, it has a preferred reading: GET. So given namespaces, it will be a good idea to put something at the end of the URL being used to uniqueify the QName. Or simply, polite. len -----Original Message----- From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@p...] So HTTP URIs have the characteristics you outline *plus* they are easy to dereference for prose, RDF or whatever else is a good representation for the resource.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








