• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: many-to-many
• From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:54:33 +0000
• In-reply-to: <E18bnRL-0004QC-00@b...>
• References: <E18bnRL-0004QC-00@b...>

Uche Ogbuji wrote,
> > Bill de hÃ?ra posted something on www-tag that's very much worth
> > contemplating, even if you don't like it.
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0301.html
>
> I'm having a great deal of trouble discerning anything new here. 
> This seems to me jsat a different stating of my own frequently-stated
> belief that semantic laxness rather than rigor is essential to make
> URIs work.  Basically, I'm happy with a humpty dumpty view of URIs:
> the agent making the reference and the agent interpreting the
> reference can basically allow URIs to mean whatever solves their
> problems.  This implies a many-to-many relationship between URIs and
> things.

It's not new, nor do I think Bill would claim it was.

For various reasons a lot of people have got themselves locked into an 
ideology (I name no names, but watch where my eyes rest ;-) which 
denies this (IMO) uncontroversial fact.

Bill is to be congratulated for reminding us of it so clearly and 
succinctly.

Cheers,


Miles

• References:
  • Re: many-to-many
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: RE: many-to-many
• Next by Date: Re: many-to-many
• Previous by thread: Re: many-to-many
• Next by thread: And do the other things. Was: many-to-many
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread