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

RE: URIs harmful

• To: 'Winchel 'Todd' Vincent III' <winchel@m...>, Jonathan Borden <jborden@a...>, John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: RE: URIs harmful
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:08:54 -0500
• Cc: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@m...>, xml-dev@l...

If you need an additional system to fix the meaning 
of the URI (to make it a word), you are adding a 
system to a system.  At this point, it quits being 
Web architecture and starts being Todd architecture. 

A URI can identify, not classify.  To make it classify, 
it needs an additional *coding system* for assigning 
meaning.  In this sense, it becomes a URN (if not 
syntactically, then by coding implementation).

Not distinguising these is what makes the 
understanding of the web architecture confusing.
Any time you have a semantic URI, you have a system 
on a system.  Berners-Lee stumbled because of 
calling this a two-level system and thinking 
it unnecessary.  It is very necessary.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Winchel 'Todd' Vincent III [mailto:winchel@m...]

If practical experience matters, I have implemented a system where we use
URIs as namespaces and (1) the URIs have (domain-specific) meaning and (2)
there are a number of (fixed) resources at the end of the URIs.

I find there are a great number of advantages to this system.  This is not
to say that namespaces that are URIs *must* have meaning or have (fixed)
resource(s) at the end of them (that would be contrary to the spec, after
all), it is simply to say that if you do so and can get others to follow the
system, there are benefits.

• Prev by Date: Commands
• Next by Date: is this the correct address to discuss xml?
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs harmful
• Next by thread: XML and WebSphere Studio Application Developer
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread