• To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Subject: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@b...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:07:11 +0300
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcJB3EGuZ+mpA3SXSMq9eqoWwtg2hwAADhCYAABmS4AADeGvfQAvBoTQ
• Thread-topic: Comparable considered necessary

> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...] 

> XML namespaces is the only place I've seen URIs used 
> significantly can you provide any others? Anyway, I decided 
> to give one more shot at explaining my dislike of the whole 
> URIs/URLs mess before bowing out. Here are some analogies 
>  
> URN: Microsoft
> URL: One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052 
> URI:  Either of the above. 
> Resource: The Microsoft Corporation

Yes, this explains your argument clearly; it really is a philosophical
debate above all, able to move towards any direction. IMHO the
distinction to be made here is that the URN is an identifier for an
abstract entity (i.e. a non-retrievable resource) and the URI is an
identifier for a physical one (one that can be retrieved/visited).
This means that we are not necessarily in disagreement and I hope it
also explains why I placed my bets on the distinction between
retrievable/non retrievable resources (which especially bothers me in
XML Names); this perhaps would remove what you dislike in URIs.

Regards,

Manos

• Prev by Date: Re: P2P and URIs
• Next by Date: Re: SQL 2k or XML?
• Previous by thread: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• Next by thread: XML "needs" a credible linking specification? Discuss.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread